new coworker told me to “slow down,” suing the government, and more

by Alison Green on February 18, 2025

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. What if hiring a spouse is truly the best choice?

I know that having a manager supervising their partner is fraught with peril — I have read enough AAM to have some great examples! But if the partner is truly the best candidate, are there guardrails you recommend? This is in a church context, and the minister’s partner is supremely qualified to be our music director. They are both being totally up-front about it, looking at alternate supervisory roles (could have a board member be the partner’s supervisor?), checking with the denomination for policy recommendations, etc. I am on the board and the hiring committee and looking for guidance.

There has also a suggestion that the partner be supervised by our volunteer HR committee. This seems awful. Even if these volunteers are completely qualified as supervisors, there will be disagreements and possibly unclear chain of authority. I keep thinking of cartoons about things designed by committee.

You shouldn’t hire the partner at all. Even if they’re the best candidate, hiring the minister’s partner is way too fraught! What if the person needs to be fired? Can everyone involved be 100% sure the situation won’t be dragged out in painful ways while everyone tries to avoid firing the minister’s partner? Can everyone involved be 100% sure that firing the partner won’t cause issues between the board and the minister? To say nothing of all the other issues that can come up with you hire a top person’s partner to work in the same organization?

There are other candidates who don’t come with those issues. The partner is not the only music director in the world.

But if you go forward with it anyway, definitely don’t have them managed by committee; that’s a recipe for ensuring they’ll receive either inadequate feedback or no feedback, issues are unlikely to be addressed in a timely manner, and they won’t have a single point person for guidance and support, and it would be unfair to them as an employee. It’ll also highlight the special nature of their situation to other employees, compounding the discomfort that’s likely to already be there.

This is a bad idea all around.

2. My new coworker told me to “slow down”

I recently received some feedback that I don’t know how to interpret. My coworker told me I needed to “slow down” and that “I didn’t need to prove myself because I was already on the team.” I feel like I did something wrong, but I’m not sure what.

I’m getting mixed messages here because my boss told me she wanted me trained on all practice areas by April, so I’ve been busting my butt trying to learn everything.

I don’t think I’ve been making any mistakes in my work, I’ve been asking good questions, and trying to take initiative on some projects. I’m not sure if this has anything to do with it, but I transitioned into this role in local government after several months of being unemployed and coming off of 8+ years in corporate roles. I’m scared to lose this job because I really enjoy it and my teammates, but “slowing down” is not really something I’m used to.

Well, it’s possible that your coworker told you to slow down because you’re moving at a speed that’s out of sync with their culture and are at risk of making mistakes, overlooking important context, or alienating team members … but it’s also possible they told you that because they’re threatened by you and/or worry about being outshined. I don’t know which of those it is, but your boss will probably know and this is a good conversation to have with her. At a minimum you should sit down with her and ask for her sense of how things are going … and ideally as part of that you would share the feedback you heard and ask if she agrees with it (and maybe whether it points to any context on the team that you should be taking into account).

3. Applicant lied on resume; should I tell her boss?

I am a director and recently received a resume from an employee at a partner organization. Our industry is small, and it’s common for employees to move between organizations. However, after reviewing her resume, I am certain she is misrepresenting her job duties.

I am friends with the director of her current organization and recently spoke with her about this employee. She has caused significant disruption within her current organization, including issues with a program we collaborate on. The duties she listed on her resume are not ones she was responsible for. I know this because we worked with different employees on these projects. Additionally, she included several responsibilities that, according to her director, were not part of her role and even led to disciplinary action.

Normally, I would not disclose to another organization that their employee is job searching. However, I also feel a sense of responsibility to inform my colleague that this employee is falsifying job duties under their name. If the situation were reversed, I would want to know. Should I tell her?

No. The appropriate consequence for lying on her resume is for you not to interview or hire her; it’s not to have her job search outed to her current employer.

4. Should I tell companies I’m interviewing with that I might be suing the government?

I was just fired by DOGE. I was not a probationary employee, and there is reason to believe the firing was due to political considerations and therefore illegal. I’ve been told that I may be a strong lead plaintiff for one of the class-action lawsuits that are being teed up. I am considering participating in one, for the sake of helping my fellow feds and preventing DOGE from destroying the government.

In the meantime, I also need to find another job outside government. Do I disclose to potential employers that if they hire me I could end up suing the government while working for them? It could impact them in three ways: (1) I would need to take time off at various points to spend on the lawsuit; (2) I could end up in the news, and my current employer would probably be mentioned in news reports, which would be viewed as a negative by some people reading those reports; (3) if the company does work for the government, a lawsuit by one of their employees could prevent them from winning new contracts.

Does the answer change if the company I’m applying to work for prefers to fly under the radar and generally tries to avoid press coverage?

My instinct is that, to protect my own interests, either I shouldn’t mention it at all until I’m hired, or I shouldn’t mention it until after I have an offer in hand. But this feels icky.

For people who don’t know what’s going on: Probationary employees in the federal government are being fired and are having it documented as being for “performance reasons” even when they’ve had glowing performance reviews and even when their managers oppose the firing. A slew of letters doing this to people went out on Saturday night (of all times). This is not only profoundly shitty from a human standpoint — being told you’re being fired for performance when your work has been good — but it will have practical ramifications too, since if they apply for another federal job in the future, this will come up during the background check.

Anyway, you definitely shouldn’t disclose the lawsuit/potential lawsuit until you have an offer, at the earliest — at which point you could maybe frame it as, “I want to let you know about this in case it’s something that you foresee causing issues.” But I’m not even convinced you should disclose it at that point; I see a stronger argument for not disclosing it at all, until and unless something specifically related to it comes up.

5. How to treat a coworker who’s struggling at work and has been moved into a different job

One of my coworkers who has been on my team has been transferred to a different role in the organization as a final Hail Mary before being fired if she doesn’t shape up.

It’s going to be awkward going forward because not only are we hiring for her old position, I am moving into her old desk. I will still see her daily and I’m wondering if it’s better to just pretend there’s nothing wrong and say nothing except pleasantries when I see her, or if congratulate her on her “new role” as if I don’t know why it’s happened (even though I have known for weeks and have been part of the decision-making around moving her). She has directly been told this is her last stop at our organization. Hoping for some professional guidance!

Treat her the way you would treat anyone who had just made an internal move that hadn’t been forced on them. You don’t need to congratulate her on the new job if you think that would be awkward, but otherwise try to mentally frame her in your head the exact same way you would anyone else who had simply changed roles. (Which means that you don’t need to feel weird or apologetic about having her old desk either.)

You may also like:
{ 393 comments }

{ 393 comments… read them below }

    1. Artemesia*

      It is one of the reasons that working for family businesses is often such a disaster. Favoritism is the least of the problems. The most obvious is incompetent family being allowed to manage others or to remain in key positions they are not doing effectively.

      1. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

        True, this. I feel like I’ve read a whole slew of letters here at AAM about just these kinds of issues.

      2. Falling Diphthong*

        This was a major theme in Season 2 of Fargo, in which the family business is the mob. No one else would hire FailSon–but he’s the son of the founder, so he gets a prominent role in management no matter how objectively terrible his leadership.

      3. Paint N Drip*

        YUP. How do you effectively bring up issues with the work of a coworker when leadership is their spouse or parent? My personal gripe with working in a part-family part-civilian workplace is the vast gulf in expectations for each group – how much work is baseline and how much flexibility is given

    2. Allonge*

      A family making a conscious choice to go into business together is a different thing than a ‘normal’ company. This is a known issue with a thousand possible ways to go wrong because of the family connection, most sane people will want to avoid sucha risk.

      Also, often family businesses don’t survive? I have seen businesses closed down because of a divorce and also – worse – a couple where the woman could not afford to get a divorce as her entire work life was in the family business. And I work in the public sector, so I don’t have a huge overview of small business life; this is just my circle of friends and family.

      1. JSPA*

        A small faith community (if that’s the issue here / can’t tell from the letter) seems like it’s somehow intrinsically on the nebulous border between a regular company and a family business. That is, if the person is best for the job in part because they have exactly the same take on spirituality, spiritual practices and church culture as the spouse, it’s not really a skill-set issue, it’s a culture issue.

        My take would be that if you hire the spouse, you have to assume that you are likely to have to lose (or cut loose) both partners, if something goes funky with either one. But that may be an acceptable option!

        Another way to think of it is, if you had one person doing both jobs, and the jobs were not divisible, and they sucked at one of the jobs, you’d have to fire them. Which… it’s a thing that happens.

        1. HigherEd Escapee*

          I agree with you here. I’ve been a professional church musician for more than 30 years and I can tell you with absolute honestly that church politics are right up there with the worst kind of office politics. My advice to LW1 would be that if there is absolutely nobody else to hire, then make sure that if there are parishioners or professionals in the choir or otherwise involved with the music program, that they have someone else other than the minister to go to when there are problems, questions, or concerns. That person or group has to have the ability to sit down with the both the music director and the minister and deliver feedback from the congregation and any performers.
          While it is absolutely normal for the minister to direct some of the musical choices in a given congregation, congregational and performer feedback is vital as well. When the minister and music director present as a united front, there has to be a mechanism to allow for real feedback and input, or there won’t be a need for either position in the long run.

          1. Starbuck*

            Yeah honestly depending on how small the community is… they’re probably going to just do it and assume that there will be some dysfunction and accept that as a price to pay. Does it suck, yes. Realistically though I’d be more surprised if they didn’t hire her. Especially with the minister and wife both clearly pushing for it. Doesn’t bode well!

        2. An Australian in London*

          I worked at a university where their policy on relationships between staff, or hiring a staff member who was in a relationship with existing staff, could not effectively (legally?) be prevented. However they would take the line that in any dispute between the two the most senior would automatically be found at fault; if equal seniority then the one who’d been there longer.

          This was spoken about in such horrified tones by the men that it was entirely self-policing. Interesting that the women didn’t tend to have a problem with it.

          1. Part time lab tech*

            I love this and in an imaginary world where I owned a business would have this as policy, combined with the lower ranking person, being forbidden from managing people for 12 months and demoted appropriately if needed.

    3. boof*

      I feel like in small communities / very specific and mission driven orgs, there might be some reasonable wiggle room here since probably the people most driven to participate may well be family.
      I sort of feel like minister and music director seem like reasonably separate positions / not too risky (vs say, minister + bookkeeper, or minister + secretary) – I say this but acknowledge I’m not religious and am just guessing what the professional interactions would be like. Would absolutely have to have a separate person she reports to though, and not a volunteer committee. I don’t know if there’s someone higher up than the minister, or some kind of senor pastor or executive pastor (I’m just guessing based on a quick search about small church positions) that they can report to if they are just clear cut hands down way better than any other option.

      1. AJ*

        In smaller churches, it’s not only considered reasonable but often concerningly common for a spouse duo to be minister/music director. To the point that it’s a stereotypical requirement for minister’s partners to play the piano. (This does absolutely lead to minister’s partners seeming like a business transaction rather than a romantic partnering.)

        1. MK*

          This is a remnant of the past, where a wife often played a big role in her husband’s career progression, and in some professions had a specific role to play. It stil exists in rare cases (like spouses of heads of state) and to a lesser degree in even more (military spouses and people married to the clergy). I don’t love it, but the people involved usually know what they are getting into, and at least nowadays they are getting paid.

          1. Falling Diphthong*

            College professor too–young applicants were expected to find a spouse to handle the social side of the role.

          2. Irish Teacher.*

            A recent Irish taoiseach (prime minister) actually made it clear his partner would not be a trailing spouse because he’s a cardiologist and had his own job and better things to do than trailing around after his partner. I suspect this was partly because they were a same-sex couple and he probably didn’t want to bring his partner with him to situations where they might be subject to homophobia, but it was also an acknowledgement of how the world has changed and both partners having jobs is the norm now.

            Admittedly, the taoiseach is head of the government, not head of state, but it was an interesting acknowledgement of why this really doesn’t work so well in today’s world.

            1. boof*

              I agree it doesn’t always work, but I think there are things with the older models that shouldn’t be completely discarded either, at least not outside of places without a strong and systematic social safety net (the government, effectively) – basically the older models had a lot more built in social support than the simple calculus of “employer and employee are there only to exchange money for labor” which works if there’s a lot of other social support and/or everyone is able bodied and has good opportunities to gather resources, but ignores the fact that many places (including the USA) really don’t want to or expect to provide social support to those who don’t have it built in already and things can go down hill really rapidly with any setbacks.

              1. Irish Teacher.*

                Yeah, I just meant the assumption that “of course the minister’s wife will play a role in the running of the church” doesn’t really work in today’s world.

            2. MK*

              It’s a complicated matter, because these jobs have a lot of overlap between the professional and the social lives of the people involved. It’s OK to say your spouse won’t accompany you to official trips, but what happens when you are expected to host foreign dignitaries? Are they never around? And a “trailing spouse” wasn’t only there to look pretty, the wives did a lot of work with organization and representing their husband. Who does these things now? The staff on top of their normal duties? You hire more staff? It gets left undone?

              Also, I am not sure how realistic it is for the spouse of a president/-prime minister/monarch, etc, to continue their career. The conflicts of interest and the security concerns must be a nightmare. Did the cardiologist work in a hospital with a bodyguard on tow?

              1. mlem*

                You hire more staff, yes. If the job needs doing, it needs doing by someone paid to do it. The elected person might well be unmarried (whether that’s not-yet, never-will, or widowed), or they might be partnered with someone who doesn’t care to provide free labor; either of those is honestly valid.

                1. doreen*

                  Some of those things you can’t really hire someone to do – you can hire someone to do a lot of the actual work a political spouse might do, but you really can’t hire someone to stand in as the spouse-equivalent at a state dinner.

                  About the work – Jill Biden taught while her husband was vice-president and president so it can be done (although I’m pretty sure she was the first in the US) but I’m sure it depends on the job – I’m sure it would have been more difficult if she were a doctor or a lawyer.

            3. mymotherwasahamster*

              Hopefully future taoiseaches (is that the right plural?) can rely on this precedent going forward!

            4. Turquoisecow*

              Jill Biden was the first First Lady to continue to have a job outside of the White House. I imagine it’s similar for other spouses of heads of state. On the rare occasions a president was not married while in office, he would have a female relative fill the hostess role.

              1. Polly Hedron*

                Yes, nine first ladies were not the President’s wife:
                – Martha Jefferson Randolph, Thomas Jefferson’s daughter; Jefferson a widower
                – Emily Donelon, Andrew Jackson’s niece; Jackson a widower
                – Angelica Van Buren, Martin Van Buren’s daughter-in-law; Van Buren a widower
                – Priscilla Tyler, John Tyler’s daughter-in-law; Tyler’s wife had a stroke and then died
                – Harriet Lane, James Buchanan’s niece; Buchanan the only bachelor U.S. President
                – Martha Johnson Patterson, Andrew Johnson’s daughter; Johnson’s wife was sickly and shy
                – Mary Arthur McElroy, Chester Arthur’s sister; Arthur a widower
                – Rose Cleveland, Grover Cleveland’s sister, until Cleveland, a widower, married while in office
                – Margaret Wilson, Woodrow Wilson’s daughter, until Wilson, another widower, married while in office

        2. Richard Hershberger*

          My mother was both the organist and church secretary in my father’s church when I was in high school. So far as I know, both organist and secretary positions were unpaid, though I’m not sure about that. Now that female clergy is more common, at least in the mainlines, we also see husband-and-wife clergy teams (or, for the really liberal churches, husband-and-husband or wife-and-wife teams). This has all the potential for wackiness one would expect, but also can work out very well.

          The LW’s church looks to me to be a step larger than my father’s was, though not necessarily a large church on any absolute scale. Having an HR committee is a good sign. My guess is that the music director position is paid part time. These positions can be hard top fill, as from an employee perspective they are kind of awkward. You need someone who has both the musical skills and a weekday job. I am more open to the hire than is Alison. Even with the potential down side, it might be the best option.

          1. slowlyaging*

            Ahh those who have lived it. My Mother was sometimes church secretary and choir director/pianist/organist in my Father’s churches depending on the need. At times she just sang in the choir. When they retired, they came to my church and sang in a Christmas musical I directed. It’s like any family/business relationship. My family never had any issue with telling you did it wrong and why. I am also more open to the hire than is Alison.

            1. Slow Gin Lizz*

              Music can be a very nepotistic field. While of course there are blind-auditioned positions in certain groups that can minimize this, there are plenty of other less formal music groups that have been created by couples or families who are all very musical and want to perform together. I also am not opposed to this hire but agree that steps need to be taken to make sure that the minister doesn’t have direct oversight of the music director. Someone (on the board/hiring committee, maybe?) needs to take charge of HR issues for the couple, and they need to understand that they have to act like the most consummate professionals. It can work, but of course it’d be easier for everyone if they could find a different MD.

              Although who’s to say that the minister will want to stick around if their partner is rejected from this job? In that case, of course, good riddance to both of them.

        3. Strive to Excel*

          I belong to a denomination where this occurs frequently! It’s very common in tiny mission churches – 20 adult members or less – for the priest and the priest’s wife to take on a lot of organizational tasks as well as doing their ministering job. Everything from general building upkeep to managing contracts to music gets rolled in. However, it’s generally felt to be healthier, as the church grows, to have members of the community step into those roles instead. The priest’s wife can often then serve as a backup/temp if needed but does not fill the role full-time.

          Any church large enough to have their own HR committee & more than one paid employee should probably avoid hiring the priest’s wife for the music director role.

      2. Lady Lessa*

        A long time ago, I noticed that it was quite common that the wife of the pastor was expected to be very active in the church, often in leadership. The unmarried pastor was rare. (This was in the evangelical branch of Christianity)

        I always felt sorry of their children because of expectations and both parents very busy.

        1. AnonPK*

          When your father is a minister, the whole family is expected to be involved in the church in very specific ways (that may differ in different places / churches). Speaking for myself, my entire life growing up revolved around the church. My mother was actively involved until the year before she got sick and died – she started to push back and say she wasn’t going to be involved in any leadership but would attend for my Dad’s sake (the church my Dad worked for was not kind to her).

          There are clear spoken and unspoken expectations on the family – and God forbid you don’t measure up to them. Anything I did as a child reflected on my father in a really unhealthy way (not sure there is a healthy way for that to happen…). Add in a small town and it was suffocating.

          1. Thin Mints didn't make me thin*

            It can also work out badly for the congregants. I’m familiar with at least one church where congregants were expected to provide free child care for the ministerial couple so they could focus on their duties.

          2. allathian*

            Oof, I’m so sorry both for what you had to endure as a child and for the early loss of your mother.

        2. Statler von Waldorf*

          If I had a a nickel for every time I dated a pastor’s daughter who was acting out and dating the bad boy because her parents were more involved with the church than their family, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.

      3. doreen*

        I think a lot of it depends on exactly what sort of church – I don’t mean theologically , exactly, although there might be a correlation to what I am taking about. There are some churches where everyone except one minister is a volunteer, there are some where being the music director is at least close to a full-time job , there are some where the director of music is responsible for hiring and supervising additional musicians and others where the “director of music” might more accurately be called “the organist” and what’s appropriate in the church where director of music plays the organ at one service each week plus funerals and weddings isn’t necessarily appropriate at the church where the music director is coordinating musicians at six services every weekend plus weddings and funerals and a couple of choir directors.

      4. learnedthehardway*

        Agreeing – if it is a small community, there may really NOT be anyone else available for the role. In a small town, it’s also entirely possible that the salary for the minister is low enough that not hiring his wife as the music director might lead to the couple needing to leave the community for economic reasons. I’m extrapolating there, but it’s a consideration.

        Ministry is one vocation where hiring one person often means hiring the other, or at least having the other spouse take on a fairly significant role within the church – even if it is on a volunteer / unpaid basis. It seems fair that the spouse be paid, as the suitability of the pastor is often based at least in part upon his/her spouse being suitable for the church community, as well.

        In this case, the couple are being totally above board and ethical in the way they are approaching the situation, and there doesn’t seem to be an equally qualified candidate. I would say the board of directors should appoint someone to be the manager for the music director from a routine management perspective (ie. directions, performance management, etc).

        The pastor is undoubtedly managed by the whole board, and hiring/firing decisions are likely done by committee in his case, and de facto, hiring/firing decisions about the wife are going to be done by committee as well (realistically speaking). When you get right down to it, a decision to let one member of the couple go would be a decision to let them both go. So they might as well formalize that, so everyone is clear on the subject.

        It would put the couple in a kind of double jeopardy, but that makes up for the fact that they’re both employed by the same organization.

        1. boof*

          Ah that’s interesting, didn’t realize it was so common to “manage by committee” in some churches / that the minister might be managed by a committee. It makes sense for either they’re both supervised by the same person/group (despite the awkwardness, at least they are at the same level / not one person supervising the other) or someone(s) appointed by the same person/group.
          I agree it’s double jeopardy but that seems pretty common in very “mission driven” pursues like clergy, academia, maybe some nonprofits too – basically things that don’t pay much and the spouse is probably already pulling a lot of weight, might as well officially recognize/manage it unless the spouse has a totally different career.

          1. Starbuck*

            It’s very similar to the executive director of a non-profit being managed by the board; that part is really not surprising. There’s no one person/role that would be a boss over them – and then who would be their boss? So you do need that committee.

            1. boof*

              I think I somehow was envisioning the catholic church where it seems like there’s a long line of managers with bishops above priests, etc etc up to the Pope at the top, rather than a local board for every church. Organized more like small local nonprofits especially for smaller denominations make sense!

          2. Richard Hershberger*

            The “undoubtedly” part is too strong. Protestant church governance models vary wildly. Sticking to the mainlines, most have some version of a bottom-up model, where the membership ultimately is in charge, but the relationship with the higher church body might limit the membership’s hiring and firing powers for the clergy (though typically not office staff or music director). Move to the Evangelicals and it is the wild west. The megachurches usually are pretty closely controlled by the senior pastor, in extreme cases being organized as legal entities with this in mind. At the other end, you can find small churches tightly controlled by the elders, often whose families have controlled that church for generations. Those guys keep the preacher on a short leash, up to and including physically removing him from the pulpit mid-sermon.

            In the case of the LW, we aren’t told but the vibe feels mid-sized mainline to me. it likely has a board of directors (though they may call it something else) that controls the checkbook and has an oversight role with the staff, probably including the pastor.

      5. bishbah*

        In my denomination, each parish church has a volunteer vestry, and the head of that is the senior warden. Think of it as a board chair to the head pastor’s CEO. That sort of person might be someone who the spouse could report to. When I worked for a church and our rector retired, we all reported to the warden until the new rector came on board. An associate priest handled the religious day-to-day. Worked fine.

        As others have pointed out, it is historically quite common for the pastor’s spouse to have had a prominent role, but I’d be curious how often those jobs were explicitly paid vs “volunteer.” Women’s work, and all…

        1. Clisby*

          Yes – I don’t know whether your denomination is Episcopal, but that’s the way the Episcopal churches I attended growing up handled things.

      6. commensally*

        Yeah, normally I’d say this is a terrible idea, but in a lot of smaller churches it’s common, and honestly just makes sense, for the minister’s spouse to be employed by the church if they’re qualified and they want the job. They will be doing a certain amount of work for the church anyway, and there will still be major disruption to the church if the marriage has problems (and, frankly, often a church still runs better the more the minister’s spouse is involved, paid or not.)

        Definitely check with the denomination to see what the standards are, but this is likely a different situation that most employers. But she absolutely shouldn’t be supervised by the minister – likely she should be supervised by whoever makes hiring/firing decisions for the minister (which many mean the church council or a committee, yes.)

    4. MK*

      Just because something can go wrong doesn’t mean it will, or that it always does. Also, a business that is started by a family is different than hiring a family member for a non-family business. Everyone knows where they stand and accept the different dynamics.

    5. Disappointed With the Staff*

      It comes down to the relationship inside the family as much as anything else.

      I’ve had friends who quit working for their parents once it became clear they would always be the kid, but OTOH I currently work for the son of the owner who’s ~30 and has grown up a lot. A few years ago I thought (based on his behaviour) that he was a complete idiot. But he’s had some learning experiences, learned from them, and is now much more sensible.

      Most “family farms” work that way and I grew up around those families. In practice you work for the couple, under direction of whoever is in charge of this bit (people who think women aren’t in charge tend not make it through their first day). Or you work for the family, if it’s more than just a couple. Our farm we had a brother and his wife running one crop, my stepfather running the packhouse and crop picking gangs etc, the sister and her husband running another crop. Family dinners could be interesting, but generally were just organisational stuff. Arguments mostly happened between the siblings in private. As a kid it was all “the waffles are doing well”, “the coffee mugs need spraying again”, “someone needs to dig out the drain down the back of the icecream field”. “someone” in this case was often the kid who got noticed at dinner. Keep your head down, keep your answers short, smile and nod.

      1. Disappointed With the Staff*

        Also, kids who think being the child of the farmer gets them special privileges are generally mistaken. Bad parents mistreat their kids just like they mistreat everyone, good parents make sure their kids are treated the same as everyone else. But every farm kid gets the special treatment of working after hours – at busy times everyone works long days.

        Most parents pay their kids for at least some of the work (if the farm is making money). And the “special privilege” you get for being the owners kid is that your actual skills count, not your age. Drive a machine that needs a skilled operator, get paid as a skilled operator not as a 15 year old on “child wages” {spit}.

        1. Allonge*

          Bad parents mistreat their kids just like they mistreat everyone, good parents make sure their kids are treated the same as everyone else.

          I don’t doubt your lived experience but this is exactly the issue with family businesses, be it a farm or otherwise. As a parent you are meant to prioritize your kids over most of the rest of the world (which of course does not mean that they need to be spoiled, but they are and should be and should feel special to you). As an employer, you need to treat all your employees the same.

          It’s called a conflict of interest for a reason: it’s not about being a good parent or a bad parent, it’s that being a good parent sometimes requires the opposite action as being a good employer does.

          1. Nodramalama*

            I don’t think that recognises the reality of how farms work. They’re family businesses by their nature. The family works and owns the land. The issues of conflict of interest aren’t the same as in an office.

            1. Allonge*

              Hm. I don’t think we disagree, actually.

              I don’t think that family farms don’t exist as a special category; I wanted to point out that it’s not as easy as being a ‘good parent’ or ‘bad parent’ once the kids or other family are also employees and there are other workers in the picture. Mostly because ‘parent’ is not a huge thing in employment in general.

              Of course you don’t have the same rules of conflict of interest in a family business as in any other business! But that says nothing about the need for conflict of interest rules.

      2. Falling Diphthong*

        He’s had some learning experiences, learned from them.

        This sentence brought me an unreasonable amount of delight, as so often we are hearing about the opposite.

      1. Carlie*

        Yes – my thought was when you see a church where the top leadership is family, that starts to raise a lot of red flags that the church either has gone or is in the process of going down the road of being a cult. It’s a bad look in general and it’s too easy for them to reinforce each other in beliefs that are a a little outside the mainline denomination’s stances.

        1. FishOutofWater*

          Having the pastor’s wife in a role such as music director, children’s program director, or secretary is incredibly common in small communities, and not a sign that the church is headed down “the road of being a cult.” Whether or not it’s a good idea is another matter we can debate, but “it’s becoming a cult!” should be pretty low on the list of potential issues.

        2. Selina Luna*

          Please note that I am not a churchgoer. The town where I grew up had about 6000 people when I left, and about 50 churches in town. A few of those were definitely family churches in the sense that you mean, where it’s the parents at the head of a cult of 3-14 children. But even among the mainline churches with congregations of over 100, it wasn’t uncommon for the pastor’s wife to have a role within the church under the direction of the minister. The most common where I lived were the head of the Sunday School or volunteer organizer. These positions were unpaid, and more often than not the wives had jobs outside of the church as well, so I don’t know if that makes a difference.

    7. anonmousie*

      Based on personal experience: they can survive, but they won’t thrive against competitors quite often. I worked as a warehouse worker for a family run company where most of office, and some of the warehouse, was family (think CEO’s son-in-law, son, daughter-in-law, nephew etc). The effort just wasn’t there, and a lot of good staff felt demoralized and left. You really see the work level in a warehouse setting, and if someone is slacking off it’s noticeable, and those in the family tended not to care. The rules didn’t apply to them. I was late 5 mins consistently? I’d be warned immediately. They were 15-30 mins? Nobody cared.

      The company had no interest in marketing and lost a lot of clients to competitors because stuff just didn’t get done or it got done wrong by the bosses or the family members (messed up orders, half-filled orders and so on). The field was niche, though, so there were still some clients who hung on and new clients who didn’t know who else was providing this type of product on the market besides the family company.

      1. Zarniwoop*

        I’ve seen the opposite though, a family business where the second generation is as talented as the first, and focused on maximizing the value of their inheritance.

        1. MK*

          And also, the family members can be a lot more invested in the success of the business, because it is their future, not just a job that they will inevitably leave at some point. I think it works better in very small businesses with not very many non-family employees and only very close family of the owners working there. It’s one thing to have a couple owning a business, and eventually their children working there too, with the intent that they will take over eventually, and another to have an onwer who has hired several random family members.

          1. Allonge*

            Or, they can hate the fact that it’s meant to be their future and they don’t have a choice in what they do for a living.

            I don’t think the point is that family businesses don’t or can’t work well. It’s more that when something is not a family business, inviting the complications of one into the company should be considered really thoroughly.

          2. veryAnon*

            I know of a family business where the parents fired their teenage offspring at one point for repeatedly doing something that could have caused a problem that she’d been warned about. Later she came back and worked for them again. From what I know, she was a hard-working and valued team member.

            The family (including her) even mentioned the incident occasionally as a sort of humorous thing. I think they all felt (including her) that it had been a useful thing to learn.

            But that was a good business to work for.

      2. Jonathan MacKay*

        Sounds almost like a company I worked for – the company used the family name, but even as a warehouse drone I heard way more than I needed to about the inner workings of the family. ((Niche enough area that if I specified the product the company would be obviously identified))

        From what I understood, the ‘owner’ I directly worked for was essentially in-name-only, having been removed from any direct responsibility over the company by his siblings and father.

    8. A Book about Metals*

      Like many things here, we only see the examples when it doesn’t work out. There are thousands of thousands of normal family businesses and have been for decades.

    9. Totally Minnie*

      We’ve had multiple letters here over the years from non-family employees of a family owned business where the family relationships were causing a lot of problems. It seems to be something that’s a known risk of taking a job in that kind of company.

    10. Dr. Rebecca*

      Often they don’t, but if they do and there’s dysfunction, they become toxic hell-holes with warring factions trying to out-power-play the others while treating their non-family employees just as badly. Ask me how I know. *sigh*

    11. Irish Teacher.*

      I think most businesses would find ways to survive and in a lot of cases, it might never become any kind of problem at all, but…it has the potential to go badly in a whole host of ways and you can’t really know if it will until it’s too late.

      Remember the letter from the woman whose two business partners were refusing to fire their extremely problematic family members and she couldn’t really outvote them both and one of them was her partner, so she probably couldn’t even really dissolve the partnership. That is a pretty extreme case but yeah, problems can and do arise.

      1. Hlao-roo*

        The letter Irish Teacher. is referring to is “my business partners won’t fire their problematic family members” from May 24, 2023 for anyone who wants to read it.

    12. CTT*

      In addition to what everyone else said, family businesses are also built around the relationship and in a best case scenario had planned for the difficulties it can cause. I think introducing that element to an existing business is different.

    14. Hats Are Great*

      This is actually really common in church leadership, though, in Protestant denominations. The spouse is assumed to “come along” with the pastor — these posting can be as short as three years — and because the pastor can be moved anywhere at any time, it’s hard for the spouse to build a career. That, and until 1970 it was just assumed that the spouse (let’s be real: wife) was the pastor’s assistant who would do all the secretarial and organizational work for the church.

      It’s not uncommon today for pastors to have met their partners in Divinity school, and often one specializes in children’s ministry or music ministry, so they can be hired along with their pastor spouse when their pastor gets a church. There’s not really any other way to do it; you spend 3 years in rural North Carolina and then the denomination sends you to Denver for 5 years and then you’re a rural Iowa for 2 years. Either one of you is independently wealthy, the spouse has built an amazing freelance career, or churches assume they’re going to be hiring the pastor’s spouse along with the pastor.

      Some denominations are better about this than others and will keep a married pastor in a major metro area so the spouse can build a career. But early-career pastors get sent to the a** end of nowhere, often where there ARE no jobs. A lot of spouses with masters and PhDs end up spending years working retail at a gas station or (if you’re lucky enough to have one) a Dollar Tree.

      And *even if* the spouse has their own career they can maintain separate from the Pastor’s, no matter where the Pastor goes, churches still assume they will get free labor out of the spouse.

      Honestly kudos to this church for paying for it.

    15. Bethany*

      In our family, there are no partnerships, which helps some. There’s a clear boss and, while they welcome feedback, it is a benevolent dictatorship and whatever they say goes. There’s clear favoritism (wildly different pay for family vs non-family) but higher expectations for family (since they’re known to be competent).
      It only really works because the owner is the final say for everything. It’s simple to just say “take it or leave it; this is my business”. If they had to answer to a board, it would be a lot more complicated.

  2. GiraffeGirl*

    To LW #3, I would add that another appropriate consequence for lying on their resume could be that you directly call out that applicant for lying. I would be really tempted to contact the applicant directly and let them know that their resume has some parts that seem less than truthful or very highly embellished. Maybe that would shame them into removing those parts and re-writing the resume to be more accurate. Just because you know they are lying doesn’t mean that other employers will have any idea they are lying.

    1. el l*

      Yeah, I don’t understand OP’s stance on what their responsibility is here.

      They say if the roles were reversed, they’d want to know their employee is lying on their resume. But when your employee is job searching…you don’t really have any responsibilities. You can’t, because fundamentally the job search is 100% between employee and Potential New Employer. It’s the new employer who wears caveat emptor and has the responsibility to make sure Potential New Employee can do what they say they can. Not current one. If Potential New Employee lies on their resume, it reflects badly on them, not current employer.

      Stepping back into everyone’s real roles, what OP does have the legitimate ability to do is to say, “I know not to trust this person’s bona fides when hiring them.” And since they applied to you, yes, I agree – it’s in-bound to call job applicant directly and be like, “I know you didn’t do this.”

      1. commensally*

        I can see a justification for this if it’s an organization you work closely with (as is the case here) and the employee is saying things that may actually cast the entire org in a false light with partner groups (like, idk, completely misrepresent what the entire org’s primary mission is or imply they misuse funding or something.) But just lying about your job duties doesn’t reach anywhere near that level.

        (I’m also not that sure what’s actually going on here is lying; saying you did things that you got in trouble for doing because they were overreach, or you did things that aren’t in your job description, isn’t actually a lie if in fact that you did them.)

        1. fhqwhgads*

          I took that one as lining up with the “casting the org in a false light”. Like, she’s including things as accomplishments, when she wasn’t supposed to do them at all – in the sense that they shouldn’t have been done, not just “not by her”.

    2. Bananapants Modiste*

      “let them know that their resume has some parts that seem less than truthful or very highly embellished.”

      I would not train them to lie better. Take AAM’s advice and do not hire.

      1. Observer*

        I would not train them to lie better.

        This. 100%

        Do not hire, but don’t say anything to this person.

    3. umami*

      I don’t really see the reason for getting involved. It’s not OP’s job to save every9one else from the applicant. Their only obligation is to fill a vacancy, and if they have issue with this applicant, just … don’t interview them? I am not sure the applicant getting another job is even a bad outcome for their current employer.

      1. el l*

        Exactly – sounds like friend/current employer would be well rid of them.

        The rest is just “not my problem” territory.

    4. learnedthehardway*

      I wouldn’t do that – a) the OP doesn’t owe the person the courtesy of a resume critique, b) it’s just forewarning the applicant to be more careful, rather than to be more honest, and c) the OP doesn’t need the hassle of the applicant trying to justify themselves or explain how they are (in their mind) really doing all those aspects of the job.

      Another consideration – the applicant may really believe they ARE doing all the job functions, and may be quite indignant to be told they are lying – the Dunning Krueger effect is VERY real.

      If the hiring manager was going to interview a person whose job responsibilities don’t seem to align with the lower level of their role, they should ask probing questions about the candidate’s accomplishments – to drill down to exactly who came up with the strategies, what the applicant’s actual contributions were, etc. etc. And to follow that up by being up front that references from the current employer will be expected.

    5. Sparkles McFadden*

      Some people think it’s no big deal to lie on their resume and won’t know they’re not getting hired because of the lie. Others have been told that “everyone lies on their resume” and are just taking bad advice. It’s a courtesy to let the candidate know that’s not the case. Some employers don’t want to do this, and it’s not an obligation, but I think it would be a kindness to let the candidate know.

      There’s no reason to call the person’s current employer. That’s overstepping and doesn’t serve a purpose.

      1. LW #3*

        Thank you all for the feedback! There is information I didn’t include in the letter, coloring my response as well. We had just hired another employee at this organization, and the resume was received unsolicited the following day after it was announced at the organization. There had been some hurt feelings with the other org feeling we “poached” the employee. Given our relationship with the organization and its director, we felt it was necessary to smooth things over.

        One of the reasons the employee we hired wanted to leave was because of this applicant and a lot of drama going on with the position and duties she was misrepresenting. Ultimately, I guess I didn’t want to be in a position to once again have information about an employee we aren’t sharing, but this has helped me process that it’s not my circus or monkeys, and there are issues with that org that have people wanting to leave.

    6. tina turner*

      It’s tempting to contact her and refer to “discrepancies” in her resume causing a problem. Better verbally than in writing, I suppose. Very vague and discreet, let her react. Keep it brief too, if at all.

      But you never know who you’ll meet later as one of you rises on the ladder of success. So I can see not doing this at all.

    7. about that*

      I don’t understand why there’s any need for “appropriate consequence” at all, other than simply not interviewing them. Everything else is a waste of time that could be better spent on a candidate search. Or daydreaming about a tropical vacation.

  3. MBK*

    LW4, I’m so sorry for what you’re going through. I have so many friends and colleagues fighting for their careers and the important work they’ve dedicated their lives to, and I just wish I knew what to do about it.

    1. WoodswomanWrites*

      Same, I can’t imagine how awful this is for you.

      In terms of your question, I lean toward not saying a thing about a potential lawsuit you could be involved in. First, you will have a lot more flexibility once you’ve proven to be a strong employee rather than a hot potato that shouldn’t be hired. Second, the disaster that’s the current federal government management is so volatile and changing that whatever you share may not be relevant down the road.

      Good luck to you in your journey. You don’t deserve to be in this position.

      1. Noooooooo*

        “ Second, the disaster that’s the current federal government management is so volatile and changing that whatever you share may not be relevant down the road.”

        This. We have absolutely no idea what’s going to happen next. The only reason to share is if you are absolutely certain a lawsuit is moving forward and is potentially worth losing your job over.

      2. Baunilha*

        Agreed. Also, my take from the letter is that there’s no lawsuit yet, so I see no point in bringing up something that may never happen. But even if it does, then it’s like WoodswomanWrites said.
        Your employer will deal with it if and when the time comes.

      3. cathy*

        “In terms of your question, I lean toward not saying a thing about a potential lawsuit you could be involved in. First, you will have a lot more flexibility once you’ve proven to be a strong employee rather than a hot potato that shouldn’t be hired. Second, the disaster that’s the current federal government management is so volatile and changing that whatever you share may not be relevant down the road.”
        100%

    2. anonymiss*

      From outside the US as well, please take the sympathy and goodwill of an internet stranger.
      It might be harder to fire people here, but still our civil service cops a lot of flack for existing. We hear the same tired maithering about bureaucratic waste, and no appreciation for the fact that the government says, but the civil service *does*. I’m not in the civil service, but I appreciate that without them, the government would be just so many windbags with no effect. I know most of your countryfolk recognise the same for you.

      A bright spot is perhaps that very few recruiting managers would see dismissal under these circumstance as reflecting on the individuals.

      I’m sorry you and your colleagues are having to deal with this. Best of luck in your job search and in the class action if you take it.

      1. workswitholdstuff*

        I’m whole heartedly agreeing with Anonymiss here – on the sentiments and on the point made about Civil Servants.

        (I’d add in Local Authority/Council workers too. It’s frustrating!)

    3. Meat Oatmeal*

      Yes! LW4, thank you for your service, and thank you for considering doing us all an additional service with that potential lawsuit.

      Personally, I think you shouldn’t bring up the potential suit at all with any employer unless you absolutely can’t avoid it. If the employer has actual policies against what you’re doing, that’s important to know. But if it just *prefers* to stay out of the news and enforces this preference with … vibes? Vibes aren’t binding. Do what you need to do.

      Whatever you decide, I’m rooting for you.

    4. fired federal worker*

      LW4 here. Thank you for your support.
      Please call your U.S. senators and representatives every single day demanding to know why they haven’t stopped Musk’s lawless rampage across the federal government. https://5calls.org/ makes calling easy and even recommends issues to call about and a script to use when you call!
      Even if your electeds are in on the con (i.e., GOP), do it anyway. Every single person in congress needs to be feeling the heat from constituents.
      If they’re Democrats, subscribe to their official (not campaign) mailing list, and then ask them on the phone, every single day they don’t send out an update documenting the administration’s abuses, why they aren’t keeping their constituents informed about what’s going on. Things are moving incredibly fast, and every Democrat who isn’t fighting a pitched public opinion battle that includes regularly communicating with their constituents (and not just to ask for money!) still doesn’t understand why the GOP has been winning elections, and isn’t fighting to win.
      If phone calls are too much for you (believe me, I get it), https://resist.bot/ makes it easy to send emails to your electeds. If you’re particularly ornery you can call AND email.
      As Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, put it in a recent interview: “No individual person can do that, but we together organizing locally, focused on our own elected officials, you’re damn right we can do it. The reason why I know we can is because we already have.”

      2. 2 Cents*

        Thanks for this info! I’m appalled that more of our elected officials aren’t standing up to them.

      3. Jennifer Strange*

        I was going to mention 5 calls! My SIL and BIL are both fed workers so they passed that along to me and my husband, and I was happy to make those calls. Thanks for the resist bot as well! Please keep your head up and take care of yourself. Know that you have so many on your side.

      4. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

        Thank you LW4, for everything. You may already know this, and I don’t have time to read all the comments, but civil lawsuits take YEARS. A decade+ isn’t out of the realm of possibility. There can be a flurry of activity, maybe a deposition that you could even do remotely, then nothing for a year or more. For this and reasons everyone else has said, I wouldn’t even mention it unless & until it becomes relevant at your new job. Best wishes!

      5. Bitte Meddler*

        My Senators are R’s, and I’ve called and emailed them dozens of times. Zero response. When I check their press releases they’re all, “Yay! Look at the unelected person infiltrating our secure systems, installing backdoor code, and cutting waste and discovering massive fraud!”

        Which means, I don’t think my and others’ calls and emails mean diddly squat to them.

        1. fired federal worker*

          A couple things:

          1) Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo has written recently about how there’s evidence that the pressure is having an effect on R members of Congress. Specifically, the form responses that some R’s are sending when people email them about what’s going on are much more careful and even-handed than their public pronouncements, and that’s new. The needle is moving, albeit slowly.

          2) This is one of the many things about government that go “slow then fast.” There’s a tipping point past which change will happen quickly, and every call and letter pushes us a tiny bit closer to that tipping point.

          Will we reach the tipping point before the country completely implodes? I have no idea. I certainly hope so. And I don’t want to get there knowing that I, personally, could have done more than I did to stop the implosion.

          1. Bitte Meddler*

            Oh, I’m still going to keep writing and calling.

            It pisses me off, though, that both of my senators, Cornyn and Cruz, have used the comments and protests as “comedic” fodder for their X and Instagram posts.

            One from Cornyn said, “If the Libs think they’re upset now, just wait until they see what we’re about to do with taxes!” So classless and gross.

        2. Eukomos*

          Keep calling! They tally up how many calls they get on each subject every day and send that data to the congressperson. It really does impact their decisions!

    5. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      What can you do? Speak up if you hear people talking about lazy wasteful feds. Call your members of Congress. Donate to one of the legal organizations filing the lawsuits LW mentioned.

    6. JMC*

      As far as this coming up in background checks in the future if they apply for a federal job again, I really don’t see how that can even be an issue, everyone knows what’s going on, and how the whole structure is being shaken up beyond repair.

      1. NigelsMinion*

        Yes, any agency that treats this separation the way they’d treat a non-probationary separation in the “before times” is not going to be a place worth your talents in the future. That goes for public and private sector employers.

    7. learnedthehardway*

      I don’t think it is the business of a future employer to know that a candidate is in a class-action lawsuit against their past employer.

      They may want to know, but it doesn’t make it their right to know.

      If the new hire has to take some time off for depositions or to testify, they can take vacation or personal time for that.

      Also, it’s very different to be in a class-action lawsuit than to be individually suing a past employer – the class action has to meet a certain threshold of reasonableness before any law firm will invest the resources to take it on and do the work of collecting the “class”. ie. there’s generally going to be a very big, very serious issue at stake, with a pretty good chance of winning. Even so, there’s a difference between an individual candidate who is suing an employer for a good reason, and one who sues several former employers – and employers should be respectful of the former.

    8. iglwif*

      +1.

      I think Alison is 100% right that you don’t need to mention the potential for lawsuits. The situation right now is so unsettled that it feels like literally anything could happen, and it’s also not super their business.

      Of course, I do get what you’re saying about how it could affect both you and them! But imagine you were considering maybe trying to get pregnant in the next year, or had reason to believe one of your parents might die in the next year, would you share that information with a potential employer? I think most of us would not share it, and most of us would not feel conflicted about failing to share it.

      1. Hey, I'm Wohrking Heah!*

        I hadn’t thought of it in those terms. Those are good comparisons. Also, a company could be under investigation, about to lose a major client, etc. and when we interview they sure don’t share that info with us. Caveat emptor.

    9. DidIRollMyEyesOutLoud*

      Sorry LW 4. This totally sucks. However, the fact that you MIGHT sue your former employer is something I consider a nunya topic. It’s NUNYA business if I decide to sue someone unrelated to you. Don’t say a word. It might not even come to pass.

  4. Observer*

    #4 – Don’t bring it up. You have nothing to gain here and a lot to lose.

    Anyone who has not been living under a rock knows what has been going on, so they have to know about the possibility of a law suit. And at the moment, it’s a possibility, not something that you are in the process of. And who knows how this is going to shape up, even if you do sue.

    It’s one thing to lie if asked. It’s another to just not highlight the possibility of some potential disruption.

    1. SupesAnon*

      Also, fwiw, I know of a case from several years ago (i.e., independent of this current shitshow) where someone sued a particular government agency as a contractor, and then later got hired in a civil service position (I found out about this because if one were to totally innocently be like “oh who is [new person]?” *googles their CV* it was right up top). (Then when this person turned out to be a toxic horrible person, others got told don’t make waves cause you’ll never get hired again, but that is a story for a different thread)

      Point being, agree with don’t bring it up unless e.g. you need some specific time off for a deposition or something (and even then). But most everyone will understand the situation (i.e., this is all wildly illegal and needs to be challenged); if they don’t, you honestly probably don’t want to be working for them.

      1. DJ Abbott*

        In my last two jobs, you didn’t have to give a reason for time off. You could just say you had a medical appointment or were taking vacation time, and people generally don’t ask questions. I tend to not share personal stuff at work, so maybe that helps people don’t think of asking me questions.
        So in the future – and this will probably be at least a year or two at the rate the courts move – you can just say you need to take some PTO and leave it at that. If anyone does ask, just say you’re going to take care of some personal business and enjoy your staycation. The only reason I could see to disclose is if not disclosing would cause some sort of legal problem for your employer.

    2. RCB*

      The other thing to consider is that lawsuits take SOOOOOOOOOO much time, unbelievably longer than people imagine they will, so even if you filed the lawsuit today it could be will over a year before you needed any significant time off of work, most everything for that first year or so is generally brief hearings and check-in calls with your attorney. Even a year from now that “significant time is a couple of days for depositions and to work on discovery requests with your attorney, then it’s another big waiting game. So it’s very unlikely that the time commitment will be big at least. The caveat to this being that this is a non-emergency case, your cases may be treated as emergency ones and move quicker, I’m not sure. The reputational issue to the employer, that’s trickier, sorry I can’t allay your worries on that one.

    3. Funko Pops Day*

      I think it might help to treat it like being involved in another lawsuit— what would you disclose if you were suing a contractor for shoddy work, or a class action suit about your phone’s battery life? I’m guessing you would take PTO as needed and say you had “an appointment” for meetings with your lawyer; if you had a court appearance or expected something in a headline, you might disclose details then. I don’t think you are any obligation to do more here.

      Thank you for your service to our country through your work and in standing up for the rule of law.

      1. fired federal worker*

        This is a helpful suggestion. There is, however, one significant difference between my situation and the scenarios you described: if I do end up suing, it will be not because I want my job back or money but rather because I want to stop DOGE, so I will be angling for as much publicity surrounding my lawsuit as possible. That would not be the case in the examples you gave.

        1. metadata minion*

          Yeah, this is a bit more like a high-profile civil rights lawsuit, though since it’s class-action at least you’re not the only one in the spotlight. It might be worth looking at whether the plaintiffs (defendants? I can never remember who actually brought suit against whom in these cases…) in Loving v VA and similar cases have talked about their experiences and how it impacted employment.

          1. fired federal worker*

            The circumstances of my personal firing are sufficiently distinct that (a) it might not end up being a class action and (b) there’s a good chance it will be reported in the news.

            1. hazel*

              Just want to say, as a public servant in another jurisdiction that has also had a lot of horrible cuts in the last year and a bit, best of best wishes for you and your colleagues.

        2. Funko Pops Day*

          Totally fair. I still think an as-needed kind of thing is fine– e.g., if there’s going to be a story featuring you in tomorrow’s paper, you might give a current workplace a heads up, but I don’t think you have an obligation to say that at some point in the future there may be articles about you during interviews.

          1. fired federal worker*

            To be completely transparent, there was a story featuring me in today’s paper, so yeah, that’s already starting.

            I suppose that means my question to Alison may turn out to be moot since any potential employer I am interviewing with will be able to easily find out what’s going on just by Googling my name.

        3. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

          One possibly relevant point: are you going to be the only plaintiff on this specific lawsuit? If there are several, articles may say things like “several recently fired workers” or “the five people recently fired from X agency” rather than using your name.

          Also, how common is your legal name? That affects whether people who hear about the lawsuit are going to think of it when they see your “Tangerina Warbleworth” resume. If your name is something like Lee or Wilson, the lawsuit would be less likely to come up while people are looking at resumes or doing interviews.

          1. fired federal worker*

            are you going to be the only plaintiff on this specific lawsuit?

            There’s a good chance that the answer is yes.

            how common is your legal name?

            My name is sufficiently uncommon that when you search for it most of the search results are about me.

      2. Irish Teacher.*

        One of my colleagues’ extended family is supposed to be suing the British government. Pretty high profile stuff related to events in Northern Ireland during “the Troubles.” It’s all kind of been stalled with the new administration, so I don’t know what the latest state of play is and I only know what’s been in the news anyway, because she doesn’t talk about it – extended family, so I guess she feels it’s not her place to tell people – but she appeared on TV with the rest of the family before one of the hearings.

        I don’t know what she told our principal – honestly, I doubt he’d be interested in the specifics; all he’d want to know is what days she needs off – but she doesn’t talk to us about it at all.

        And I haven’t said anything to indicate I saw her on the news because…well, she clearly doesn’t want to discuss it and that’s her decision.

        To be fair, it’s unlikely that her employer would be mentioned as she is only distantly connected, but certainly parents could have seen her on TV as I did and some may disapprove. But I don’t see any reason why she should disclose any more than she wants to and certainly she shouldn’t have to disclose when applying for a job. And I think it is the same for the LW.

    4. Elizabeth West*

      100%, and I will add that this is NOT a normal situation at ALL. There is no telling what could happen.

    5. Specks*

      This. There is absolutely no need to share until you have a specific timeline and specific asks, like days off. And even then you should only share if you know it’s safe, once you’ve assessed your new boss and environment.

      Also, I’m so sorry this is being done to you, and thank you for all your work. Many of us appreciate it and know how much effort you put in and how much difference you made, even if that’s not the impression from all the ignorant trolls making noise right now. It’s heartbreaking to see all the people making a difference in the world being treated like this; so many in both the government and other NGOs losing their jobs right now, I feel like I hear from a new friend affected every day. Good luck in your job search.

      1. DJ Abbott*

        “you should only share if you know it’s safe”
        You can never know for sure that it’s safe. When I was younger, I sometimes confided in coworkers and several times they turned around and gossiped and caused trouble. Now I live by the rule of not telling anyone anything that I wouldn’t want everyone to know. It works much better.
        I think you should disclose only when the consequences of not disclosing would be worse. By then, you will know your new boss and workplace and employer well enough to make a good judgment on that.
        Good luck, and I’m adding my thanks for what you’re doing! :)

  5. JJ*

    OP2, I think the “slow down” comment is coming from someone more experienced, seeing you trying to learn / do everything at once. They might mean you should take the time to learn things step by step, so that you don’t burn out, or take too large a bite of a project before you can chew. I know the boss has set a deadline, but from a colleague’s point of view (often the people who know more about the nitty gritty of the work than the boss) they might see that you are taking things too fast to actually be successful. Of course your colleague might just be wrong, or maybe they are just slow themselves, but I think it’s worth checking in with other colleagues to see if they have the same impression (and if they think the deadline your boss set is more reasonable).

    1. Akito*

      Also worth considering is that going too fast could provide the boss with the justification to increase future expectations, which could either lead to burnout or lead to output problems if a future project has issues that could have benefited from the now-lost buffer time.

      OP, it’s best not to bring this up with the boss. There is very little to be gained, and very much to be lost.

      1. Union Nerd*

        I think it’s very useful to ask the boss if things are going well, and whether OP is doing well in the role. I think it’s not useful to bring up the comment, because it’s ambiguously stated and could be viewed negatively.

        I interpreted it similar to JJ, in that I think the coworker is telling OP that they’re pushing themself too hard and need to relax into a sustainable pace for the years to come. Is OP quietly working overtime to compensate for any feelings that they aren’t efficient? Or working through breaks and lunch for the same reason? I had a coworker who did this, and they were so focused on quantity of work that they missed out on improving the quality, which is important for our field. Someone who focuses on quantity might think that my pace is a bit lazy, however I think about how to do things better while I’m traveling to work or walking the dog and as a result I’m often more productive than my coworkers.

      2. learnedthehardway*

        Agreed. It’s entirely possible that the co-worker sees the OP as creating an unsustainable expectation that more work can be consistently accomplished.

        Of course, it’s entirely possible that the co-worker is lazy and doesn’t want to do more work, or that they see the OP as a threat.

        If I were the OP, I would consider the reputation of the co-worker who gave me this advice. Are they well-respected, experienced, a good worker, and a good colleague? If so, I would take the advice seriously. IF they are competitive, lazy, overly ambitious, or otherwise negative, then proceed at a pace that you feel is sustainable for you.

        I once told a coworker that they were doing way too much work and setting expectations that were unreasonable for the rest of the team. In this situation, the person was literally working round the clock 7 days a week. She was getting astronomical amounts of work done, but it wasn’t sustainable for her, it was creating unrealistic expectations from our manager (who himself actually had a word with her about taking on too much), and it was starting to cause resentment from team members who had other responsibilities and/or a life outside of work.

    2. slow down*

      Yes, when I’ve said this to new hires, it’s because they’re moving so quickly that they’re not building a foundation of knowledge, they’re just gaining a very superficial understanding. It makes them a good employee for six months and a weak employee for six years.

      1. Hush42*

        Yep. I recently said almost these exact things to a new hire. However, I am his manager so it might be a little different. But he wasn’t taking the time to truly learn things, he was just checking the box going “Okay, someone showed me X, on tot he next thing” but, at least at my company, everything has nuance and ever new task, even if its mostly the same as what you already learned, can be a little different. I told him I needed him to slow down and really learn each aspect of his position, not just have a broad understanding. He also, from day 1, said “I can help with that” to literally everything anyone brought up, even if it’s entirely unrelated to his position.

      2. Smithy*

        Yes – a lot of jobs are ones where letting certain tasks “marinate” a bit, affords that extra time to think a bit more, ask a few more questions, bring in other colleagues that are relevant but weren’t necessarily thought of at first, etc.

        In my work, I send a lot of external emails trying to get meetings. Technically speaking, these emails don’t have to be difficult to write provided the language is grammatical, professional and clear. But for these emails where the relationship is lukewarm or even stone cold – taking that extra time to think through who should send it? What is the best possible excuse we have for reaching out? How might we preposition follow up if the email receives a “no thanks” or is ghosted? And the reason that taking that extra time is valuable is that other people may know things and have thoughts that we would never know. So again, while the task itself is pretty straight forward and can be done technically fine in about 30 minutes, if not less – someone working that quickly isn’t learning why other people take longer to send out those emails.

        Without knowing more about the OP’s job, it’s impossible to know entirely where the comment is coming from. But there is a good faith perspective where telling someone to slow down is said from a genuine mentorship position.

    3. Mutually supportive*

      This was my interpretation too. I also thought that the colleague is trying to be reassuring – that you don’t need to fight to prove yourself in every moment (which would be feasible given the recent work history) because you’re already part of the team now and can afford to be steadier.

      1. Annie2*

        This was my read, too. OP says they’ve been “busting their butt” – I think the most likely scenario is that the co-worker sees that and wants OP to know that they’re doing well in the eyes of the team (“you don’t need to prove yourself”) and that it’s okay to work at a more sustainable pace. It’s hard to know for sure without more information about tone etc., but this seems like a pretty normal and even kind thing to say.

        1. Starbuck*

          Yeah, a generous reading is the coworker is seeing LW approaching burn-out level pacing and is trying to head that off. Showing that you’ve got the skills and drive at a new place is definitely smart, but setting unsustainable expectations for your long-term productivity can be a trap.

        2. daffodil*

          I thought the same thing reading the letter. You don’t have to “bust your butt” just work at a sustainable pace within your contracted work hours.

    4. KeinName*

      It could also be someone trying to destabilize you (maybe unconsciously). That interpretation speaks to my prior experience.
      You can check if you sense that:
      – Team members aren’t fully on board with your hire
      – There are some biases against certain working styles associated with your prior career
      – You‘re the only one who moves „at pace“
      – The person who said this is genuinely kind and committed to your growth
      – is there a sign your „hurry“ has hindered others

      I‘d go for staying true to your own working style, checking in with boss, and letting others know you are on a timeline and explaining that’s just how you work.
      My team knows me as quick. They don’t like being hurried by me but will not let this happen anyway. During onboarding they expressed how great it is that I was up to speed in two weeks.
      But others I know had to quit jobs because the slower civil servants bullied them.

      1. just a thought*

        You are coming from a corporate job, you probably just naturally work faster than the civil service employee. I went from a non union job to a union one. For me it was like walking with my feet shackled. I stayed only a year

        2. Margaret Cavendish*

          Yeah, this is really important – the pace of government is much slower than corporate, and lots of people have trouble adjusting when they make the switch.

          Private sector orgs have the goal of making a profit, which leads to faster decision-making and more tolerance for risk. Public sector has the goal of serving the public, which requires more collaboration (which takes longer) and less risk tolerance. Neither is inherently “better” or “worse,” it’s just that they have different purposes and different requirements for the way work gets done.

        3. Union Nerd*

          It really depends on the union! Ours supports managers who want to discipline employees who don’t work hard, and in fact we discourage it when managers avoid disciplining problem employees. My union doesn’t want extreme efficiency, but they also don’t want bad employees to hurt the morale of those who are good. Our union doesn’t spend time looking for problems, but if someone is lazy and wants the union to support them then they become quite disappointed!

        4. Unpopular Comment Here*

          Exactly. I worked 1 year at a government job where they hired me on specifically because they were extremely far behind (this was basic data entry stuff nothing earthshattering). Within a very short time I was told by multiple coworkers to slow down because “you are making us all look bad. This is the government you get paid the same no matter how many *** you enter” There is a reason private sector people have less than favorable opinions about gov’t workers.

          1. fired federal worker*

            I have encountered lazy people and underproductive teams in both the public and private sector. I am not convinced the percentage is higher in government. When people jump to the conclusion that their particular problem is being solved too slowly by the government because the people tasked with solving it are lazy, in my experience the reality is more often that it’s being solved too slowly because the person or team responsible for solving it is overworked and overwhelmed and going as fast as they can.

            Every single person I worked with at my job before I was fired by DOGE last week was dedicated, competent, and a hard worker. Every single one of them had more work on their plate than they could keep up with. Working for government in any sort of position of responsibility means constantly reprioritizing so that the most important work gets done while other work has to wait.

            (This is not to say that there isn’t any inefficiency in government that should be improved. There absolutely is. But you don’t solve that by firing people! All that does is make the people left behind even more overworked, so that they don’t have any bandwidth left to work on improving the inefficiencies because they spend all their time up to their necks in the day-to-day work.)

          2. slow down*

            All the government employees I’ve worked with work incredibly hard under tight timelines to produce a high volume of excellent work. I think extrapolating from your experience (one year in one office) to hypothesize that the majority of public sector workers are slow and lazy and that the majority of private sector workers are not, and have unfavorable opinions of govt workers because of this, is silly.

        5. anotherfan*

          Different expectations is a thing you need to be aware of. Just because you’re used to working at a specific pace doesn’t mean your new coworkers are trying to sabotage you if their understanding of the culture is that you’re over-doing. That also doesn’t mean you’re wrong. You’ve been trained to do the job within certain parameters including internal and external pressure and how much power your boss wields.

          I work for newspapers where deadlines are real. If we need 500 words or something for tomorrow’s paper, it better be done in the next hour. We’ll get kids fresh out of college who, when asked for 500 words, are concerned if they don’t get a week to write it. Moving from newspapers to academics is a real … experience in changing expectations and habits. People I know who have done so are beyond surprised at what they consider such a slow pace for such basic behaviors as setting and making deadlines, and to the academics, the pace of trained media people is beyond understanding.

      2. AnonAnonAnon*

        +1. The people doing this unconsciously are sometimes more of a problem. In my experience, someone who’s frequently vocal about their concerns over your pace, even if it’s from a place of genuine kindness, can inadvertently give a lot of ammo to people trying to destabilize you.

      3. Banana Pyjamas*

        “ But others I know had to quit jobs because the slower civil servants bullied them.”

        Similarly, I know people who had to slow the pace of their required certifications because of bullying from a boss who struggled with the material. When the bully became the grand boss they took the opposite approach making people complete the work as quickly as possible.

        I feel like a lot of people in this particular sub thread aren’t local government. If they were they would have much more likely said this was some combination of your speed is out of touch with the culture AND they feel threatened.

        On the other hand, I have heard this feedback given legitimately exactly once. The person in question jumped into everything his ears picked up that was part of his previous role and had a tendency to over-explain. It was very obnoxious combo of Phoebe and Dorthy Ann from “The Magic School Bus” and got him a reputation for mansplaining.

        Now maybe you’re not a mansplaining Phoebe Ann, but if you’re jumping in on everyone’s everything, then people will probably be frustrated even if you’re just following directions. You can take two approaches:

        1. Decide you don’t care because the boss said so.

        2. Figure out ways to be less intrusive:
        A. Focus on one task per person you will jump in on, and tell them which task you’re focusing on.
        B. Focus on one person at a time to shadow.

        From experience, #1 makes it much harder to build meaningful work relationships. I’m still not sure where I land on this personally. Good relationships build the path of least resistance, but on the other hand, your insecurity is not my problem.

    5. Ask others*

      “but I think it’s worth checking in with other colleagues to see if they have the same impression”

      This. It’s really hard to tell if this is coming from someone experienced trying to help you (because you are out of sync with your org’s work culture, you are making mistakes or boss is too ambitious and you are the one not able to realise that because of lack of experience) or if it is someone who feels threatened by you.
      I would try to get a better feeling of the team dynamics before addressing this with my boss. Maybe you can give praise to your colleagues in public, even if not really warranted? Tell them in a team meeting that something is interesting, that this is a good idea, that they are being helpful, that you could only learn this much so fast because of their good explanations? If the mood changes, that might give you another clue that this was about recognition.

    6. stratospherica*

      Yes, I’ve definitely given similar advice to new hires before. Context and tone matters of course, but I’ve definitely made a point of telling eager new colleagues to leave themselves some breathing room while they’re still highly motivated so that it’s not going to be such a struggle and a shock when the honeymoon period has worn off – mainly because that’s happened to me in the past!

      1. Ginger Baker*

        100% this. I had to tell someone (who I adore and very much want to succeed!) to stop picking up work from the “extra” list because they were not leaving enough time for me to train them. Plus if they consistently work at 100% pace, they will burn out fast AND more importantly to me tbh when we get a REAL *emergency* they won’t have any available time to pitch in because they already fully booked their time first thing that morning! Not actually helpful when emergencies happen relatively often! Team “aim for 85%” here: some days will be 60% and some days (sigh) will be 120% and clearly super unrealistic to maintain under daily circumstances and frankly, I need Managers to not somehow start thinking 120% is the new 100% y’all. (I will note here that I am known for getting a ton done and being a rockstar.)

        1. Margaret Cavendish*

          Yes! I’m trying to explain this to one of my new hires as well. Working at 120% is not the goal, and even 100% is not the goal, because they’re not sustainable in the long run. By definition, you can’t be “exceeding expectations” every day – it’s like everyone being “above average” every day, the math doesn’t math.

    7. londonedit*

      Yeah, I can imagine if a new colleague came in and started trying to Do All The Things straight away, I might say to them hey, maybe slow down a bit, you don’t need to suddenly learn all this stuff all at once. There’s often a lot of nuance to things, which you need to take time to appreciate as well as learning the nuts and bolts of processes, and I’d worry that someone who came in and just wanted to do everything immediately would maybe miss out on taking in some of the nuance and the history and the way people in that organisation work together. There’s no sense in being a bull in a china shop – you’re just going to get people’s backs up, and you might miss important context at the same time.

      Of course, it’s possible that this colleague wants the OP to slow down because they think they’ll be made to look bad in comparison – I can imagine a team where everyone’s been coasting for a while, doing enough but not going above and beyond, and then suddenly it’s ‘Well Sally can get through 50 widgets in a day and she’s only just started – you lot need to up your game’. So it would definitely be worth the OP seeing what the general feeling is. But I don’t think it’s about making mistakes, as the OP seems to think it is – my guess would be that it’s more of a ‘Whoa, hold on there, you don’t need to do everything all at the same time’ reaction.

      1. Banana Pyjamas*

        In this case, boss told new employee do x amount by y date. It’s not the colleague’s place to slow the new employees down.

    8. Susan Calvin*

      Quite frankly it could also be just… not criticism, per se? Because with the amount of nervous energy radiating from only three paragraphs, I imagine irl OP may come across as quite alarming.

      Especially with the “you’re already on the team” addition, this gives me more an impression of someone trying to combat severe imposter syndrome and/or early stage burnout, whereas OP seems maybe inclined to worst-case readings.

      1. londonedit*

        Yes, good point – I also picked up on the fact that the OP seems to think that the colleague is just concerned about them making mistakes, which would feed into the idea that the OP is maybe coming across as a bit too intense. ‘Hey, no need to do all of this at once, you’re already on the team, you don’t need to keep trying to prove yourself’ is a message I can imagine trying to convey to someone who’s acting as if they’re going to be fired any minute when there’s no justification for them feeling like that.

      2. Myrin*

        Yeah, normally, when I read “transitioned to local government”, as someone who works in local government herself (albeit not in the US), I tend to think it’s the thing I encounter regularly with the majority of my coworkers, where they simply don’t seem to have a particular sense of urgency. I have many coworkers who are outstandingly efficient, prompt in their answers, and willing to go one or two extra steps so that work overall goes more smoothly, but most… well, aren’t like that. People – both coworkers and citizens – comment on how fast and accurate my turnout is all the time because it’s apparently unusual (whereas I don’t feel like I’m doing anything special; I’ve always been told that I simply work really fast compared to others but I don’t know what exactly it is that I do which makes it that way).

        However, OP’s letter gives off a pretty… hectic vibe. I happen to have a new coworker like this as well and while the issues he brings up are almost always justified and I can understand the frustration he feels which accumulates through a lot of things which aren’t working as they should, I’ve actually had to tell him several times to try and approach things in a calmer, more patient manner, that nobody is going to bite his head off if he doesn’t know exactly how to do [thing] after six weeks, and that he doesn’t need to be so fixated on X when he could do Y instead where he doesn’t have to wait for an answer by someone else like he does with X.
        Without knowing OP’s specific situation, this letter gives me much the same feelings.

        1. My Useless Two Cents*

          I worked with a gal who was super excitable and questioned everything. We are a company that specializes in making paper planes from office paper. Almost immediately it was “why don’t we expand into construction paper?”, “wouldn’t it be great if we used cardstock?”, “we should look into making life-sized paper helicopters! Wouldn’t that be fun?”

          I truly loved working with her, she was a lot of fun. But trying to get her to slow down and focus on office-paper paper planes was frankly exhausting. I thought of her while reading OP’s letter. OP it’s okay to be excited and to question things, but it’s also okay to slow down and let the trainer set the pace. They may be aware of nuance you just don’t quite get (yet!). You’d be surprised at how many options there are in making office-paper paper planes and how complicated it is to switch manufacturing to construction paper!

      3. Allonge*

        I had this impression too. Sure, it can be many other things, but – OP, you seem very, very, very worried in general and about this comment in particular.

        Most people are decent people; unless you have information to the contrary, take this as a sign of worry for you.

    9. bamcheeks*

      I know the boss has set a deadline

      I guess my first question is, is it a deadline, or an expectation? Unless they are doing some incredibly technical work and it’s all brand new to LW, “I want you to be trained on all practice areas by [the month after next]” doesn’t seem that pressured to me. To me that means you’ve had the basic training on everything, are building relationships with your colleagues, and are able to take responsibility for your own area of work and finding out what else you need to know, and I’d consider that a pretty reasonable expectation for the first 2-4 months (not sure exactly when LW started). So I wonder whether LW is hearing this as much more pressured than it actually is because she’s coming into the role with a certain amount of anxiety and worry after being unemployed.

      1. Myrin*

        Yeah, that honestly didn’t read like a deadline at all to me but rather a guide for OP – I personally think it’s very helpful to know if I should realistically understand Process X after two weeks or three months.
        It helps calibrate my own expectations, too, and identifying problem areas I might not even have noticed otherwise (like, if I’m still struggling with Process X after four weeks when people only need two weeks to understand it on average, it might be a sign that I’m doing something wrong or approaching it in a fundamentally convoluted way; if I’m still strugglich with it after four weeks when people on avery need three months to understand it, I needn’t worry at all at that point because that seems to be completely normal).

      2. L*

        Yes, and “trained on” does not mean “have perfect mastery of.” If a boss told me they wanted me trained on something in X amount of time, I would understand that to mean that the deadline was for themselves or someone they had assigned to finish showing me all the things I needed to know by that time, not a deadline for me. Even if you’re expected to undertake your training independantly, I would take it to mean you should have found time to familiarize yourself with the basics of all the areas by that point, not be an expert on everything.

        I definitely took the co-worker’s comment as a helpful (or maybe worried) nudge to OP to not stress so hard or burn themselves out, not as a criticism or a means to undercut them.

    10. Melody Powers*

      Yeah I would not jump to thinking the coworker is threatened by them. I got comments like that when I switched to my current workplace and it was just good advice. I went from places that had us running around in crisis mode too often to this place where the attitude is that the work will still be there if we don’t rush and the important thing is to do it well in a reasonable time frame. I also work for government now and I think that’s part of the culture shift when you move from something profit-driven.

    11. Falling Diphthong*

      I also thought that perhaps OP was coming across to colleague as very anxious, convinced they were about to fail and be fired, and colleague was trying to assure them that they were on track and things were normal.

    12. Katie*

      Honestly I think it could be either thing. I have been that trainer where the person is trying to learn the work and not really get it but insist that they need to learn other things too even though they haven’t learned the first thing yet.

      I have also seen people push back needlessly to someone learning their work. Giving me an hour of your day to learn the task so I can help them is a fight.

      1. misspiggy*

        It could also be different learning styles. I’ve often been told to slow down, but I think ADHD means I have to take a fast pace or I can’t put the basics together.

        It evens out eventually, so at first it looks like I’m going too fast, then too slow, and by a few months in I tend to be about right.

        As long as the manager doesn’t expect the same learning curve from others, I think it’s better to support people to take different approaches to learning a new role.

    13. Margaret Cavendish*

      OP2, “faster” doesn’t always mean “better,” and sometimes it’s even counterproductive. For example, instead of faster, sometimes we need something that is:
      ~cheaper
      ~safer
      ~well-researched
      …in which case “faster” can lead to errors or having to re-do the work.

      Sometimes “faster” is fine but not necessary – if you get me an answer today but I can’t do anything with it until next Thursday, there really is no point in rushing.

      And sometimes, we’re not even looking for a quantifiable result. Sometimes the only thing you’re expected to do is learn – which is far more effective if you do it slowly than if you do it quickly. Cramming for an exam may get you a decent result on the exam, but chances are you won’t retain the information afterwards.

      Definitely ask your boss and some of your other colleagues, but it’s very possible that your first colleague is right, and “fast” isn’t the full expectation here.

    14. Dust Bunny*

      I noticed that the OP said “I don’t think I’m making mistakes”. I just spent two days correcting an Excel file entered by a coworker who prides herself on speed. But we need the file to be searchable and to look professional so capitalization, punctuation, and spelling also count. I’m not her supervisor but I’m in charge of this project so we had to have another talk about how speed isn’t the only thing that counts–I need accuracy. So maybe the OP needs to double-check that they aren’t making mistakes, and also recognize that even if they aren’t making mistakes now getting invested in this speed might lead to mistakes as they get to know the job better and the work presumably gets more involved and less supervised.

    15. Annony*

      OP mentioned that they are also trying to take initiative. I know that I have had to tell new hires to slow down and focus on learning when they try to take initiative before fully understanding the process.

  6. Hanna*

    Employing a member of the church to be the music director and having that member be related to someone else high up in the church infrastructure somehow just seems like one of those inevitable things that small to medium size churches can’t easily avoid. It’s incestuous, sure, but seeing that the music director of a church generally needs to attend the church and be very involved in the worship, it can be quite odd for a small church to try to hire in someone from outside your congregation. A member of my parents’ church took a job playing organ for a larger church and it meant she had to stop attending my parents’ church 97% of the time (while her husband and children stayed behind without her.) It sucked because (of course) she was one of their best musicians and was also the choir director (who then could never attend any of the performances because she was at work somewhere else during services.) So of course you want to hire from within if you can, and if that happens to be the pastor’s wife, well, better she attends her husband’s church than disappearing to another church every Sunday, right?

    Is it a terrible idea? Yes. But small-church hiring is already inherently terrible because nearly everyone’s boss is also their spiritual leader. My parents’ church *currently* has a husband-and-wife pastoral team, and the previous pastor they hired was also married to an ordained seminary graduate. I think it’s becoming more common now that women are attending seminary more and (inevitably) marrying the men they meet there. So churches hire the couple as a team and get a head pastor plus a youth pastor, or a head pastor and a pastoral care lead, or a head pastor and a music director, or whatever. It’s like married professors trying to both find jobs at the same university.

    1. Artemesia*

      The music director need not be a member and it is often better if they are not. There are so many qualified music directors and so few positions that it is fairly easy to hire someone who is not married to the minister if one wants to have integrity in hiring.

      1. Account*

        As someone who was recently on a hiring committee for a church music position— I disagree that there are many great applicants! I mean, yes, on paper there are. But my church (like many) is a small church in a smallish town. The music director position is a 10 hour/week gig. Nobody would uproot themselves for a job with those hours, so our hiring pool is limited to basically my town. And it has to be someone who has another, non-church job, or other means of support, because every church job needs the 10am on Sundays time slot. THEN it has to be someone who is not just skilled as a music director, but who is aligned with the vibes, the culture, the style of the particular church (and denomination). In interviewing, we found it to be a very short list of candidates!

        1. Jackalope*

          Yes, you hit on a number of relevant points that may not be obvious to someone outside the situation. In particular, the music director needs to attend the Sunday morning services (and any other services that have music, if they exist) and so they are de facto a member (or at least a regularly attendee) of that church. Unlike church office positions where someone can work at the church and still attend somewhere else (or nowhere, if they aren’t church attendees), a music director is going to be doing the music part of the service. And it’s not a job that you can really do if you aren’t at least familiar with and sympathetic to the faith part of things, as well as the vibe, as you pointed out. The music is supposed to be giving people another way to draw closer to God, and that’s not as easy to do if you don’t believe in God, for example.

          1. commensally*

            Also if you’re expected to provide music for funerals etc. you may be expected to be on call at short notice on weekdays, too. For a large enough church, you hire a full-time person (and there likely are plenty of applicants.) For a part-time position, your ideal candidate is someone who doesn’t need/want full time pay and is already heavily involved in the church life. There’s a reason it’s traditionally been someone’s spouse.

          2. Staff Singer*

            You might think that you can’t be a church musician without sharing their beliefs, but I spent almost 20 years having a good chunk of my bills paid for by Jesus as an atheist. One place I worked had an octet of staff singers and all but one were either Jewish or atheist. Weddings, funerals, Evensongs, Lessons & Carols all brought to you buy unbelievers.

            The smaller the church is, the more intertwined all the leadership gets because there’s less money to hire out tasks. There’s a lot of pressure to volunteer your talents for The Lord, but it’s curious how it’s always musicians who get pushed to volunteer and not general contractors or accountants.

            1. Jessen*

              I suspect part of the issue here is it’s difficult to hire other Christians – because most churches tend to hold services at pretty much the same time. Which means your pool is going to be either people who want to go to your specific church, or people who don’t really care about going to church at all. How big that second pool is depends on your area.

      2. KJC*

        I’ve never attended a church where the music team weren’t all members, and I have been a member at varying times of a 30 person church in the Northeast, a ~300 person church in the Southeast, a megachurch on the West Coast, and a ~200 person church in the mid Atlantic. The music director is a spiritual leadership role, as music in a church isn’t performance, it’s an integral part of worship, and leading worship also often involves prayer before/after songs, as well.

        1. KJC*

          p.s. To clarify, in the case of the mega church, the music director for a local site actually became a member after being hired for the role.

        2. Elizabeth West*

          I interviewed for a job like that once, at a large church an old coworker went to (they were married to the minister’s offspring), but it wasn’t the director position — it was an assistant role. They specifically said they preferred non-members for that particular position, as it was easier to supervise for exactly the reasons OP has outlined. I didn’t get the job, and I don’t know if they decided to go with a member after all.

          I was sitting here wondering what would happen if the minister and the music director got divorced, though.

          1. Colette*

            Yeah, divorced or marital problems would be a big issue – but even a hospitalized child, serious illness, death in the family, or a vacation would mean they’re both out at once.

            1. Elizabeth West*

              All that could theoretically be covered, I suppose, but a divorce could be messy, especially if it’s acrimonious. Though other commenters have said this is pretty normal in churches, so YMMV.

      3. Malarkey01*

        Maybe it varies by denomination? But I’ve been on church hiring committees and in our denomination conference the music director 100% has to be a member of our congregation and are considered a spiritual leader of the church.

        So no there really aren’t tons of other candidates out there.

      4. Not That Kind of Doctor*

        My brother-in-law is a software developer with a piano performance degree who paid his rent through college as a church organist. A couple of times over the years he’s attempted to attend a church without getting involved in the music side, and inevitably this breaks down because music director in those churches has been a high-drama position with high turnover, so somebody leaves and there he is, a professional organist, right there.

        1. Aggretsuko*

          Does he have to tell everyone he’s an organist when he joins, or is his reputation as one just out there?

    2. RCB*

      That was my thought too, I was conflicted because the realistic side of me knew that it’s just very common to have related employees at churches, but the HR side of me felt so gross thinking about it and being okay with it, it really is interesting how we have to just hold our noses and let things be in some situations.

      1. Aggretsuko*

        Same thing. Church world/employment is different from most places, and having the wife work there as well is just pretty likely.

    3. Disagree*

      “and if that happens to be the pastor’s wife, well, better she attends her husband’s church than disappearing to another church every Sunday, right?”

      I don’t want to be cynic, but the church shouldn’t make hiring decisions just to keep peace in the pastor’s family.

      I think it is better if key positions in a church are held by persons independent from each other so you have some “spiritual dissonance”. The small church my parents go to has a new pastor who turned out way more conservative than expected. His wife is in line with him and now there is almost no activity left that isn’t very traditional teaching. It’s overpowering for the church members.

      1. Ellis Bell*

        I think the issue is not that it would cost a pastor’s family “peace”, but that moving churches is like moving schools, or moving towns. If it’s a low paid, low hours position people just aren’t going to change how they live their lives for the sake of it.

    4. Ashley*

      I agree that this is different if it is a smaller or medium church. If you are a larger church stay far far away because the dynamics and money is different. Typically smaller churches have tougher budgets.
      If you do go down this road talk to the Synod/Diocese if you have one or at least other churches. Also depending on everyone’s jobs could you hire the wire on a stipend sub bases for a few months?
      Smaller churches are a totally different world. And be prepared to lose both people at the same time if the pastor gets a new call.

    5. JustKnope*

      Yeah the answer is out of sync with reality for the vast, vast majority of small to medium sized churches.

    6. Lemons*

      Smaller church workplaces are already so fraught, they really really should not hire the minister’s spouse for any position, but especially not a directorial one. There are a LOT of talented music directors out there, there’s no chance the minister’s wife is the best music director on the planet.

      I personally think no one on staff should be a member of the church other than the minister(s), because things get so mixed up when your boss, who might need to discipline or fire you, is also your spiritual advisor, who you are supposed to trust and be open with. I don’t think it’s possible to thread this needle.

      1. Bella Ridley*

        There can be a lot of talented music directors out there, but there’s a reason positions like this are very difficult to fill. It doesn’t matter if someone is the best music director on the planet, you’re not looking for that, you’re looking for the best fit for this specific role. In a big city a big church might have this as a full-time role and be able to seek out those amazing applicants, but if you’re in a smaller city or town (small pool of applicants), seeking a qualified music director (even smaller), for part-time work (as is common in small churches), and seeking someone who is either a member of your faith or at least congruent to your beliefs (shrinking it down further), and available every single Sunday morning plus other days as required…all those ultra-talented music directors are not knocking down the doors for this job opportunity.

        1. Lemons*

          I bring it up because LW doesn’t seem like they’re even willing to look beyond the wife, framing her as “truly the best choice,” while at the same time describing all the reasons she is not the best choice (the chain of command issues). They haven’t provided details about the search, so it’s possible it’s been extensive and fruitless, or it’s possible the old director quit yesterday and they’re like “oh yeah no worries, Sharon can do it.”

    7. About Letter #1*

      My husband was music director for our church for a number of years. He was (hopefully obviously) married to me and not the pastor, but I wouldn’t think it would be an issue. 50 weeks of the year, he chose music and held rehearsals completely independent of the pastor. The other 2 weeks he might be asked to include a particular song, but they didn’t work together closely. I think the pastor’s wife does this job now.

      It might matter that this church is independent and in theory ran by a board of elders (of which the pastor is a leader), but I don’t really see a conflict here for all the reasons listed above; it’s generally part-time and the best candidates are already members and therefore known entities. Unless you’re choosing the spouse over another willing applicant, I say it’s fine. I’d be more worried about the spouse wanting to leave and feeling like she can’t quit than I would be about her needing to be fired.

    8. sticky wicket*

      Yes! It is very common for spouses to work together in leadership at churches. A minister’s wife is often deeply involved in the church. She could be running music, Sunday School, or certain fellowship events, and/or she could be serving as a kind of unofficial avatar of the minister. It’s not a typical bureaucratic office situation.

  7. Daria grace*

    #1 in addition to the things Alison brought up, I’d be concerned about the wellbeing/pastoral care implications for a church job to a greater degree than I would in a secular org. Church jobs tend to have questionable work-life balance and to mix work and personal life in weird, complicated ways. I have so much respect for people I know who work in churches because I would really struggle with having my spiritual life and a lot of my friendships tangled up with my job. Having both members of a couple employed by the same church seems like it risks multiplying the impact of church employment dynamics on the wellbeing of employees and their whole family.

    1. Lemons*

      Yes! I commented this on another thread, but your boss cannot provide pastoral care to you, and you can’t be adequately open to that care while maintaining professional distance. Plus, there’s basically never HR, and if something did happen, you’re at risk of losing your spiritual community, as well as your job. No no no.

      I had a relative who worked at a church who was deeply harmed by this dynamic, the minister was a good minister but a terrible manager, and allowed bullying in the workplace. I don’t know how my relative continued to trust the minister with their spiritual stuff while at the same time being completely failed by them as a manager. They were hospitalized over the stress.

  8. Gloria Soli Deo*

    As a church musician, I have to say that I don’t think hiring the minister’s spouse as music director is a bad idea. I understand that normally family relationships create real problems in a work relationship but this is really a different environment. The spouse could make a valuable contribution to worship services, especially if he/she is highly qualified. And the husband/wife collaboration could actually work really well.

    1. PurpleCattledog*

      I really don’t get the strong objection to this. It’s completely normal for minister’s spouses to hold roles within a church. So normal in fact that it looks odd if a spouse isn’t working (usually unpaid) for the Church. I’ve seen plenty of couples where it’s really a kind of shared ministry.

      Maybe music director is a far more significant job than I’m imagining. But I’m expecting it to be low paid as a sole job, unlikely to attract overtime or public holiday rates etc. I would also expect anyone with such a role to be a part of the church – which very much restricts the candidate pool.

      Personally I’m also really opposed to the idea that a woman misses out on a job because of who her husband is! And I’d be really annoyed if the congregation expected her to do work for the church but never be recognised for it through official roles.

      There are always alternative supervision arrangements that can be put in place. Yes it would be awkward to have to fire them, but it’s awkward firing anyone in a church. If the church is properly run they have ways to respond to the priest not performing properly, I’m sure they could cope with a spouse underperforming. It may mean the priest decides to move on from the church/parish – but excluding his spouse because she’s a wife could very well achieve the same!

      1. a bright young reporter with a point of view*

        I’d say if it’s a big church and a full time gig where the money is going to matter, there might be problems. But if it’s a regular church and they’re just compensating for the six or seven hours it takes to wrangle/practice with that week’s music team and perform on Sunday, it’s probably going to be okay, and compensating them is better than just having them do it unpaid.

        Small note that we don’t know either the minister or the musician’s gender…but it wouldn’t surprise me if you’re right.

      2. Helewise*

        I agree, and would also observe that those pastors’ spouses (typically wives in my setting) that don’t want to be actively engaged in the congregation like this will make this very clear in the hiring process. Historically the assumption is that this is a two-for-one position with the pastor’s wife taking on Sunday School or music, and although that’s changed quite a bit in recent years it is definitely not a thing of the past.

    2. Anonny*

      I was a clergy spouse for 13 years. Employing or having an engaged spouse is much more common/normal in clergydom than anywhere else.

      If that person is the most qualified candidate, and they have worked out a plan, then it is quite normal for them to have a position like that. If the clergy person is well-liked, not hiring the spouse may mean they’ll move on to a different position that will give their spouse employment too.

      I feel like a few times recently the advice has missed the mark because of norms/cultures outside of more traditional workplace settings. one and the AI in college one (granted the guest lecturer’s comment was inappropriate) didn’t take into account the nuances of those specific environments. This isn’t a critique so to speak – just something interesting to me as a person who is into understanding workplace culture. Allison does such a great job – and in any other setting, the feedback would be spot on.

  9. It's a Trap LW #1*

    LW #1, been there, done that, don’t do it.

    I was just in the same situation for five years. Minister hired his spouse as the music director/worship leader/choir director and put their kid as third in command.

    It is messed up.. They have created a cult of personality. The lies, manipulation, and entitlement from all three are outrageous. It’s ugly.

    Especially ugly because they promote everything in the name of goodness and god and “caring”.

    And yes, the music director is very good at what she does, but the power situation is terrible. The whole family runs the church. For their benefit.

    They promote church as “family”, are very good at suckering people in to do actual staff work for free.

    They are super nepotistic to their kid. They are putting kiddo in the position to take over next. REALLY awkward in the music program. Kiddo is a major asshole. Parents chased away other volunteers so Nepo Baby could get all the credit and the praise.

    Anytime anyone says anything less than gushing about Nepo Baby, their parents shut that person down.

    Oh, and they have not only covered for Nepo Baby’s affairs with other church members but encouraged the affairs so Nepo Baby could find a spouse. Lost church members over it.

    And none of this started in this church. It was going on in previous churches.

    There are a lot of other issues with the family and how they run things, this is just the highlight reel.

    I’ve also experienced this with in another church where family members got hired and it was also ugly. And with volunteer families as well. They can be ruthless in consolidating power and their nepotism.

    Hiring family in church = bad scene.

    1. Account*

      But the spouse just made a bad situation worse— sounds like your lead minister is a huge problem and would be no matter who the second in command was.

    2. Overthinking It*

      Also in small communities – even rather large ones – this may be the only job in the whole town that would be a fit for the clergy spouse at the time they relocated, so the Church would miss out on the opportunity to have that minister as well since he/she would need to be where his spouse could find work since clergy pay is usually not high.

    3. Organmeister in New Hampshire*

      “The lies, manipulation, and entitlement from all three are outrageous.”

      I mean, if it’s *that* bad, there are options. Join a different church.

    4. Ellis Bell*

      I think this underlines just how bad a situation of consolidated power can get, but the extreme nature of your example sort of actually makes it less relevant to the OP. Alison’s cautions are about how even when people mean well, there will be ramifications, like not being able to fire the person you live with. Yours are about people deliberately trying to pull off a coup. I don’t think there are any safeguards that can make a husband able to dispassionately fire his wife, but you could definitely look at a safeguard preventing them from bringing in a child of theirs and grooming them for power.

    5. PurpleCattledog*

      Do you think everything would be fine if the spouse and child did not hold official roles? Or I’d the minister was not family with the people he is prioritising ? Cause frankly it sounds like the minister is not doing their job.

      If your church is part of a denomination that has a reporting structure of any sort – it might be worth reaching out to report irregularities in how the church is functioning. If you find yourself referring to your church as a cult it’s got to be an eye opener that things are not ok.

      1. It's a Trap LW #1*

        Good question, PurpleCattledog.

        I think having an non-family member in the role would expose the issues faster because they present a very united, polished front that looks like the exception the the no family working together rule. They cover for each other big time.

        It would put checks on things. And put a damper on the power consolidation and the ability to create a cult of personality. And the ability to give their kid unlimited power.

        Plus. the spouse has an outsize amount of power that they abuse. Usually in favor of the kid. It’s not like the pastor will do anything about it. And they’re all in tight with the committees, there’s no one to go to.

        I know it can be hard to find people (so, so hard in some areas!) and that this is an extreme example. I still have seen enough over the years that family working together in church, especially in top positions… I fully agree with Alison that it’s best avoided.

        A non-reporting denomination, unfortunately.

        Fully agreed, not ok. I left and am taking time away from church for now.

    6. anonymous worker ant*

      This sounds like an awful situation, but as other people have said, would it really be that much better if the spouse wasn’t the music director? It sounds like the minister has sole hiring authority which is probably a bigger problem – if someone like them had hired a non-family member they would likely have still hired someone who was going to be 100% their backup, and then they’d just have *another* person on their side. We’ve had something like that happen in our church where the minister was single with no kids (but having an affair with the head of the council….)

      Any church where the minister has that much sole power in church government, and no effective checks, is going to have those kinds of problems regardless of whether their family is getting paid to back them up or not.

    7. Frankie*

      The bad scene you’re describing here is the church itself. Not the singular hire of a music director. This is nearly every church, some are just better at hiding it. This pair needs to be reported to the denomination’s overarching structure however. Why did everyone accept this from them? With that you gave them the power to do this.

    8. Annie*

      of course there are examples where this could all go wrong, but there are other examples where there are no issues. My church I was raised in had a husband and wife team of pastors. They shared the duties with the husband being the 1 and the wife being the #2 pastor, also preached together on sermons.

      They eventually retired and their son took over as pastor, and his wife was the musical leader. No drama, no problems. It’s a successful church and the husband and wife are still elders in the church.

  10. Overthinking It*

    Regarding the church hiring the clergy spouse for another professional role: This is very very normal. Clergy often are married to other clergy (in the denominations that allow female clergy and/or gay marriages) or to people in other types of ministry (music, Christian ed, etc) and they often hired/assigned as a package deal. Also, very normal that the clergyperson reports tocommittee, staff parrish relations commiittee,

    1. sb51*

      Yeah, since clergy in many faiths don’t have a choice about where they’re sent, trying to make sure the uprooted spouse has employment options is not quite as ridiculous as this situation would usually be—it’s like married academics.

    2. Whale I Never*

      I have to agree! I’ve been a member at a number of synagogues that employed married couples–rabbi and admin staff, rabbi and cantor (which in this case at least was similar to music director I think?), rabbi leading services and rabbi in charge of education. In some cases, it’s similar to dual academic placements, where in many cases couples often have to choose between being hired together, living apart, or having one spouse give up their career. In other cases, one spouse is a lay person who happens to be the best qualified for the position.

      I think it can be different from typical office positions in that, for better or worse, “clergy’s spouse” is often a role that people are expected to fill socially and communally. Even if that’s less… expected/structured than it was in the 1950s, shall we say, the spouse typically is AROUND and more of a known quantity than they are in a secular office because they’re members of the religious community. Likewise, there’s usually a board/committee that is also much more hands-on than other nonprofits because they are also members who attend regularly. Religious communities, especially smaller ones, are often family-centric by design.

      1. Political consultant*

        Totally agree – I’m a synagogue board member and I think the religious context here matters a lot. Rabbis often move for their positions and it’s very common to treat their spouses like academia treats trailing spouses, including hiring them at the synagogue.

        Also, at most synagogues, rabbis don’t supervise lay staff. Typically, the board hires and supervises clergy and an executive director and the ED hires and supervises all other lay staff. It sounds like this church doesn’t have an ED, but I don’t think it’s be egregious special treatment for the music director to report to the board instead of the minister. You could treat it like other board-supervised position at a non-profit: you’re hiring an experienced senior employee who needs big picture oversight and accountability, but not the kind of day-to-day supervision better provided by an individual manager and/or you could make the board president or HR VP directly responsible for supervising.

    3. el l*

      Yes, agree, especially in small towns. Though there are plenty of situations where you could reasonably say: “We can find other music directors, and spouse can find other churches to be music director at.”

      I think if you have to go there, you need to have one more condition for this to work. There has to be someone who you can make spouse’s boss who has tons of credibility and a strong personality. Someone who can fire spouse if need be, and take the heat.

  11. Myrin*

    I’m not in the US so apologies if I’m getting things mixed up, but isn’t DOGE not even a government agency? Why can they fire anyone at all? Wouldn’t that be like, IDK, an outside consultant who works for his consulting firm and not the company who engaged him to take a look at the company’s finances deciding he just gets to fire people from that company all by himself?

    2. Greyhound*

      Not in the US either but as far as I can see they can do anything they like, like a herd of trampling angry elephants. No offence to actual elephants intended. I’m so sorry that this is happening and wish I could help. As a retired public servant and the mother of a current one, it’s just chilling.

    3. Bilateralrope*

      The legality of what DOGE has been doing is questionable enough that there are already multiple lawsuits about it.

      1. Bird names*

        Yeah, several unions, among others, are tackling it as well rn, but that is going to take a while to yield results. This pseudo-agency is apparently trying the whole “move fast, break things” approach (doesn’t even work in tech most of the time) in the hopes to bamboozle people enough to give in/up to their bullshit.

        1. Calamity Janine*

          “move fast, break things” is a motto that works when your sign of success is not… actual success, but instead “disrupting an industry”. so it’s breaking things for the sake of breaking them.

          so relevant to the LW, i don’t think anyone is going to be shocked if you end up in a lawsuit about how stuff relating to you got broken, and you want the world to know it got smashed to smithereens. it’s very clear that’s the goal at hand: smashy smashy. nobody should be shocked at your response to it. and given the mass violations of privacy towards sensitive information, there’s a significant chance that your coworkers and bosses will end up also in a similar class action suit against the same people for very similar “move fast, break things, specifically other people’s things” reasons.

          there’s no coincidence here that a lot of what’s getting broken are possible piggybacks full of money, including the latest declaration that DOGE will be investigating how much gold is really in Fort Knox with the excuse of “we just wanna see it, y’know, to see it really exists!”. which is the sort of villainous plan that Gargamel would be embarrassed to implement due to all the smurfs seeing through it. i would call it the oldest trick in the book, but i think it’s older than both books and language to a significant degree – i’ve seen pet dogs use the same hustle of “oh i don’t want to take your toy, i just want to see it! honest! just let me see it. over there. while you turn your back to me.” sometimes one just wishes that maybe the evil out to doom democracy could get it together enough to actually do so with some competence. right now, Boris and Natasha are wincing because there’s no way Rocky and Bullwinkle would fall for this, and Skeletor won’t even be in the same room with this level of rookie nonsense. i don’t mean they have to go to the full level of Rattigan from the Great Mouse Detective in terms of elaborate contrivances to do evil with, and i certainly don’t want them to actually succeed.

          but the lack of effort is a bit of an insult to injury.

          alternative advice to the LW: if future bosses have a problem with this, it means they’re likely full of truly incredible amounts of gullibility and that’s why they think DOGE is right and you are wrong. this means that in the event you have any issues, they will be literally the easiest marks to counter-hustle. every single time it comes up you can simply shout “quick, look behind you! a three-headed monkey!” and make a swift escape as if you were the Guybrush Threepwood of the office. you can easily keep them mesmerized with a card where both sides read “how to keep an idiot busy: see reverse” and use that time to line up another job.

          1. Bird names*

            Just to be clear, I really don’t agree with that approach either, for reasons similar to what you wrote. Considering that the nitwit in charge considers himself a tech genius it wasn’t a surprise (also see everything Twitter) that he would try this.

            I recently read a quote along the lines of “history first repeats itself as a tragedy and then as a farce.” We seem to be doing both at once right now.

            Also a very apt description: “…a lot of what’s getting broken are possible piggybacks full of money”
            LW, I wish you best of luck navigating this and for you and everyone else directly or indirectly affected by this: vindication.

        2. JustaTech*

          Yeah, even Facebook/Meta gave up the whole “move fast and break things” years and years ago, because it doesn’t work.

          1. Bird names*

            Yeah, unless you just want a bunch of broken stuff, it’s just not useful. It just proves that building things and building them in such a way that others actually benefit, takes skill and time.
            Those who can’t do that and don’t intend to learn apparently substitute messing it up for everyone else. Somewhat telling that it reminds me of a cranky toddler trampling on a sand castle.

    5. Drag0nfly*

      DOGE was originally created in 2014, under the name US Digital Service. Obama created it to bring in young techies to assist with fixing the problem the Obamacare website. In 2014 he arranged it so the agency didn’t have to follow the standard federal agency hiring procedures when they brought in the techies. So, the agency already existed, they just changed the name, and Musk is a political appointee, just like Mikey Dickerson, Obama’s head of the original agency. And we all know about Musk’s so-called Big-Ball techies by now.

      But Musk’s techies aren’t fixing software, they were sent to “follow the money.” And with respect to lawsuits, they’re leveraging the court of public opinion already. That’s why you see those headlines about FEMA putting up illegal aliens in luxe hotels vs. the *Americans* FEMA forced to live in tents after Hurricane Helene. Headlines with that kind of juxtaposition are why so many polls show that Americans are cool with what DOGE is doing. And why the feds and non profit workers who post here feel so isolated, because to the average American they look like the “corruptocrats,” or whatever the term du jour is. Regular people are cheering for them to lose their jobs, and THEY are going to be in the jury pool for any lawsuits. Uphill battle right there.

      Back to legalities, Trump put a sunset clause on DOGE’s current activities (18 months), which means he doesn’t need to ask Congress for permission to do the DOGE agenda on a more permanent basis. From what I’m reading he’s on a blitzkrieg, and one carefully designed to avoid certain legal traps. For instance, lawyers who’ve commented on this have mentioned that DOGE has been careful to avoid any spending that Congress is Constitutionally / lawfully required to be involved in.

      Specifically, Trump directed DOGE to *only* look for spending done by/in the executive branch, which is his domain, as the head of the executive branch. That’s why he was able to hit US AID, its existence goes back to JFK’s executive order in the 60s. What can be made by executive order can be undone that way; that’s why political strategists always criticized Obama’s “pen and a phone” approach. And I notice Congressional Republicans are teeing up bills to make Trump’s EOs into actual laws, while they still have the majority. So some of what we see here is likely to be permanent for the next several political cycles.

      What we see happening here is one more reason why government power should be limited. The Founding Fathers set up the government with the idea that their ideological opponents could be running the show. So, what power would you *not* trust them with? Limit that power for everyone! If you don’t trust a given politician to wield a particular power properly, then don’t allow even your favored politician to have that power, either. I was hoping people would get on board with returning to the idea of limiting government power after all the anguish of the 2016 election, but maybe this time enough people will see the wisdom of it now.

    6. Your Former Password Resetter*

      Unfortunately they’re supported by some of the highest authorities in government, so they’re effectively empowered to steamroll the existing managers.
      And yes, this is definitely illegal in all sorts of ways, but it’s also a blatant powergrab by fascists who already attempted a violent coup to overthrow the government.

    7. Emmy Noether*

      Also not in the US, but it is my understanding that this is exactly what is happening.

      The commentary I’ve read is all about (1) the safeguards of democracy and rule of law being by nature slow acting, and currently being overrun by the sheer volume of things that are happening.

      And (2) the highest levels of all 3 branches of government currently being controlled by the same party, so the checks-and-balances it’s supposed to provide is iffy. It all depends on whether there are enough conservatives that have actual conservative values (rather than just lust for power) and are not ok with dismantling democracy.

      Truly, we are living in interesting times.

    8. FedToo*

      They were absorbed into the US Digital Services agency so they are an agency, but they are also not personally firing anyone. They are instructing the heads of agency (who are very recent Trump appointees or were hand selected career officials in acting positions) to do the firing.

      It’s not a perfect analogy but this is more akin to a hostile takeover or a company where the new owners have consultants that come in and recommend who gets fired and the new owners follow all their recommendations.

    11. Parenthesis Guy*

      Per Executive Order, the USDS has been renamed as DOGE. In addition, there is also a new organization called “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization” as part of what was the USDS. So, it sort of is a government agency. Whether this is legal is a different question. But I mean, Space Force was created via Executive Order, so why not this?

      In any event, DOGE isn’t doing the firing. OPM is doing the firing. It’s just that OPM is doing the firing based on what DOGE tells them. It’s more like an outside consultant making suggestions that are just rubber-stamped by the company they work for.

      1. Falling Diphthong*

        For framing, Doge is the fake Twitter handle a certain person uses to make posts about how great he is.

        When my spouse told me the name of the new agency I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

        1. Dek*

          I’m actively angry that now I have to see the word “DOGE” and it’s, like…a serious and dire thing. This is even more stupid than the Space Force with the Legally Distinct From Starfleet logo.

          Like, it’s just…It’s bad enough that he’s coming in with a sledgehammer and smashing important things. Making the “department” name a meme joke…just infuriating.

    12. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      They can because they are. It’s totally illegal, but that needs to go through the courts. These are people who don’t care about rules, norms, or laws and whose goal is destruction.

    13. Starbuck*

      You summed it up! A lot of what they are getting away with is because people are choosing to let them do it. They don’t have real authority.

    14. LL*

      Basically, they took an existing federal agency: the united states digital service (USDS) and renamed it to united states doge service or something and then somehow made Musk a government employee and hired a bunch of cronies for him and voila, doge is an official agency. I believe USDS was originally created by Obama, so it was under the purview of the president, so Trump could do that. I’m not sure that any of the rest of it was legal. (and to be clear, they started going in and ruining other agencies before they officially did this, but why would they care about that?)

      1. fired federal worker*

        This is almost exactly right, but one minor correction: Trump signed the Executive Order rebranding the U.S. Digital Service as the U.S. DOGE Service on the first day of his administration, so it’s not accurate to say that they started ruining other agencies before it was done.

        Another important tidbit to be aware of is that the Executive Order leveraged a little-known, rarely used federal law to establish a second entity inside the U.S. DOGE Service called the “U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization”. The law allows Temporary Organization to bring an unlimited number of volunteers in to work for the government without having to go through any of the regulated processes for hiring government employees. This is how they were able to staff DOGE so quickly when it usually takes months to hire people into the government.

        Another Executive Order Trump issued authorized him to bring people into the government without them needing to pass a background check. Many, perhaps most, of the people working for DOGE would not have passed a background check—some of them are known to have committed crimes!—and yet they are being allowed to walk into agencies and access sensitive and complex federal systems which contain private data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans. What could possibly go wrong?

  12. Acallidryas*

    LW 1: I’ve been involved with or worked at Churches my entire life, and my family has always been engaged in our church community, including music ministries. So I don’t think this is a huge issue at all! it is incredibly common for the pastor’s spouse to have some role, sometimes paid, in the church.

    If you’re looking for guardrails, I’d ask around in your denomination or other churches in your area, because I guarantee a similar situation has come up before.

  13. bamcheeks*

    LW2, I would understand that comment as “you seem really anxious, please chill out”.

    It is expected that it takes you a few months to learn everything, and “up to speed by April” probably doesn’t mean “indistinguishable from someone who has been here for five years as already”, but “making a solid contribution in your key areas and feeling ownership of the role”. That will usually happen organically as you keep showing up, listening in meetings and doing your duties. “Watching and learning” is often much more useful than “busting your butt” cos you don’t actually know how or where to bust your butt to begin with.

    If you are running around trying to jump in everything RIGHT NOW and trying to prove your worth at every step, or find out about EVERYTHING, and constantly PROVE YOURSELF that can be super disruptive and stressful for everyone else around you.

    By all means check in with your boss to see how you are doing, and listen carefully to the answer. If the answer is that you’re on track and that she has no concerns, chill out a bit.

    1. Organmeister in New Hampshire*

      I must disagree. The first 100 days are a vital time in a new role, especially if you’re a senior employee. What matters here is what the boss has hired LW to do, which sounds like “come up to speed as quickly as possible.” The wrong person to listen to is a low-energy employee who is probably upset at change.

      1. bamcheeks*

        I don’t disagree that the first hundred days are important, but that doesn’t mean “work as fast as you possibly can” in many, MANY workplaces. Where I am, it means, “this is your chance to build up relationships, listen and learn”. I’m sure this depends on the type of job you are doing and the type of work area you are in, but in my area, the more senior you are, the more listening and learning you do, not less.

        Maybe this is a “low-energy employee”– I can’t possibly know and neither can you! They might equally be a busy and effective person who is being disrupted by LW and needs them to calm down. LW needs to check in with her boss to figure out which it is.

        1. Low-energy*

          “Maybe this is a “low-energy employee”– I can’t possibly know and neither can you!”

          This is the most important part. OP needs to be really careful to stay open-minded if the co-worker has a point.
          Also “low-energy” depends so much on the perspective. It’s the same as people pushing a lot of ideas are considered either as “innovative”, “dynamic”, “refreshing” or “clueless”, “hectic” or “steam-rolling”.

          And it wouldn’t be the first boss to hire somebody to accomplish impossible tasks. I would always assume that a boss acts in their own interest. In most cases this overlaps with the interest of the employee, so in general no problem to take the boss at their word. But not all the time.

        2. Rebekah*

          I think it’s also worth noting that “low energy” may be hard to tell for a newbie. In every job I’ve had by 18months it was taking me about 2 hours to do the same amount of work I did in ten hours the first week. That could look like low energy because I had way more downtime and there was not a sense of nervous energy around because everything was under control. However I could also accomplish three times more in the day then when I was a newbie running around looking super energetic.

      2. londonedit*

        ‘Come up to speed as quickly as possible’ doesn’t have to mean ‘Throw yourself into absolutely everything to the extent that colleagues are starting to wonder whether you’re OK’. I don’t know, maybe it’s different perspectives from different industries, but in my experience there’s only so much you can do. In my role, ‘getting up to speed’ would mean getting to grips with the various books that are currently in progress, that have recently been published and that are being proposed at upcoming acquisition meetings, so that you get your head around what’s on the list and what people are talking about. That definitely takes time! But you’d be expected to be ‘up to speed’ with it within a couple of months, not a couple of weeks. Even then, there will inevitably be things you’ll need to ask about or context you need to appreciate. If someone came in and immediately tried to commit absolutely everything to memory and learn all the surrounding context and nail every single detail, people would be like whoa, hang on a minute, no one’s expecting you to know all of this straight away! It takes time to fully appreciate everything and how it all knits together – oh, this author has a tricky agent, this one’s always late delivering so we’ll have to build in extra time, this book might move because there’s a big event happening next June, etc etc.

        1. bamcheeks*

          Also “by April” is a bare minimum of six weeks, if LW started the job yesterday, and presumably they’ve already been in post at least 2-3 weeks. It may be nearly 3 months if they’ve been in post since the beginning of January.

          I am honestly having a hard time squaring “2-3 months for you to be fully trained up” and “get up to speed as quickly as possible”– generally my jobs have been a mixture of the immediate “we expect you to be on the llama grooming rota from day one, here’s how the rota system works and where we keep the brushes”, and the slower “you’ll be responsible for re-designing the llama habitats, but obviously you’ll need to observe the existing llama habitats and how we use them before you can jump into that one”, but even on the slow parts of that, 2-3 months would be a reasonable expectation to start being recognised as the llama habitat expert. As you get more senior, the expectation is that it will take longer to get acclimatised, because you’ve got bigger systems and more interdependencies to understand before you want to start making changes — our CEO has been in post for 6 months, and people are just starting to expect some major decisions or strategies to start coming down, but noone will be too shocked if it doesn’t happen for another few months yet.
          I would genuinely be really interested to hear what kind of jobs would feel like 2-3 months to get up to speed was high pressure!

      3. AnonAnonAnon*

        That’s fair, but the LW probably needs to build rapport with them as well as get a feel for what their deal is. Does this person seem to have similar perceptions of pace and urgency compared to the rest of their team? If so, it’s worth slowing down a bit in collaboration with your manager.

        If the LW starts to sense that this person is actually a low-energy employee…this is where things get tricky. Sometimes you can only build relationships with someone like this if you go out of your way to not appear busy. Take that as you will.

    2. Ellis Bell*

      I agree with you that there’s anxiety in OPs post, but I’ve also heard the words “slow down” given by colleagues who just don’t want to be outshined, and who can’t keep up. Equally I’ve heard it to mean “you’re rushing” but couched politely. The instruction is so impossibly vague as to be useless. It could literally spring from any motivation, and mean anything in practice. That in itself will cause anxiety! OP needs to speak to the boss and get real clarity.

      1. Organmeister in New Hampshire*

        I want to remind OP that the person who really matters here is her boss. That is not to say that she should affirmatively alienate the (perhaps) low-energy colleague, but OP reports to her boss, and the boss sets the expectations as to OP’s performance. From what information we have, it sounds like the boss wants to move quickly.

    3. gyratory_circus*

      Absolutely agreed. “Up to speed” means being able to do most of the tasks adequately, especially those of the simpler variety. The nightmare tasks will still be going to the old timers.

      IME, reassuring new employees to slow down isn’t about jealousy or feeling threatened. It’s about knowing the realistic pace of the job long term, and how to not give management ammunition to speed things up to a degree that work can’t be done correctly in the time allotted.

    4. anonymous worker ant*

      +1

      This could be an employee trying to sabotage you. And/or it could be an employee who is used to lower expectations and is worried you’re going to blow the curve for everyone.

      But the fact that they were careful to reassure you that you were doing fine as part of it is likely a sign that you are in fact pushing too hard. And a new employee rushing around wanting to DO ALL THE THINGS can be legitimately disruptive for the rest of the office. We had a new employee here who was doing fine training and getting up to speed and not making mistakes on their work – but was also constantly trying to “show initiative” by taking care of things that needed doing – often things that were another person’s assigned tasks they were already in the process of working on, or things that we’d already gone through a process of deciding didn’t, in fact, need doing. And constantly checking them was exhausting.

      1. Organmeister in New Hampshire*

        “And a new employee rushing around wanting to DO ALL THE THINGS can be legitimately disruptive for the rest of the office”

        And if the boss wants OP to be a change agent/disruptor (and there’s evidence that the boss *does* want that, since she laid down an aggressive timetable), maybe that’s what OP should be doing. Again, the primary person OP should be listening to is her boss. This is common sense.

        1. bamcheeks*

          Genuinely interested but what kind of work do you do where “trained on all areas within 2-3 months” would be an aggressive schedule? That would be a pretty soft start in every job I have had.

  14. AngryBridgeEngineer*

    #2 – my experience as a consultant (not some business consultant, I’m an engineer) who has worked on plenty of local and state government projects it that things move slower on the government end. That makes perfect sense because they are the client – they get to determine that schedule. They also rarely get overtime for this reason (at least where I live). When you’re on the private side, you are expected to adjust to the client’s changing schedule…and some clients are better at sticking to an agreed-upon schedule than others.

  15. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

    4. I’m not in the US but do have experience in being involved in a court case against a former employer while I was looking for work (I turned whistleblower).

    I did have to explain why they were unlikely to get a reference from the firm at all but I didn’t raise any of the legal shenanigans. Thing is, these kind of legal cases that go to high courts take a LONG time to move. I had a stressful day being questioned by forensic accountants, then a few weeks of hiding from the press and cumulating in being called to give evidence which was unpleasant but over in a few days.

    The total time it lasted was over a year. So interruptions at work were not that severe. However, my mental health TANKED. My advice would be to look into whatever you can do to shore that up because I didn’t and remained unemployed for a long while.

    1. kt*

      Similarly, I’m involved in an ongoing class action against a previous employer. It’s been going on for 2.5 years now, and I haven’t disclosed to either of the employers I’ve had since then. Admittedly mine isn’t high profile and I’m not a lead plaintiff, but it’s taken very, very little of my time. I think for the lead plaintiffs it’s been only a bit more (though perhaps because the employer didn’t put up a defense, and the judge ruled in our favor by default).

      Good luck. Try to pace yourself — it’s a long, slow process. Mostly waiting.

  16. Seal*

    #1 – Between my own work experiences and horror stories from my colleagues, I very much agree with Alison’s in this. I’ve worked at two different places that created elaborate work-arounds to institutional nepotism policies to accommodate a spousal hire. While it may have looked good on paper, in reality it was at best uncomfortable for everyone. At one job, the hired spouse was rude and nasty to everyone on a good day, but their supervisor – who had been promoted specifically to supervise the spouse – refused to do anything for fear of upsetting the other spouse. At different job, an administrator’s spouse was hired for a mission-critical job despite having nowhere near the experience and expertise the position required. Things quickly fell apart and everyone knew why, but no one dared to say anything. Worse, the administrator was expected to represent the organization at various high-profile functions and events that none of the rest of the staff were allowed to attend. Guess who their plus one was? The kicker was that both places insisted repeatedly that allowing spouses to work together was a good thing; trust me when I tell you it absolutely was not. Nepotism policies exist for a reason.

  17. General von Klinkerhoffen*

    LW3: some of the things you have identified as “lies” are “she says she does X but I know that someone else does X”. Unless you have an unusual insight into the inner workings of the other employer, you won’t necessarily know if an individual is the only X or maybe one of three. Perhaps your usual X contact handles all the X for local clients and this candidate handles the out-of-state X.

    If you do genuinely have enough information to know that she is misrepresenting herself, it’s still none of her company’s business because when she is applying for new jobs she is not representing them. Her boss is not her mom and you gain nothing by snitching on her.

    By all means shred her resume. But you have neither a responsibility nor the standing to report any misrepresentation more widely.

  18. Rebekah*

    #2 I think this could be coming from a place of genuine concern for OP if they seem to be operating in a way that’s very stressed/frazzled/working a lot of unpaid overtime etc. I could easily see myself trying to tell a new coworker “Slow down, relax, have a seat and a cookie for ten seconds, no one expects you to know everything week one. Everyone else took three months to find their feet and won’t think less of you if you take a couple months as well.” if the new coworker appeared to be trying to run at 120mph on a cocktail of fear and caffeine.

    1. Sneaky Squirrel*

      This was my interpretation as well. It may not be that OP is doing anything wrong at all, and simply that OP is taking on a lot and may be on a path to burn out by doing too much, too fast.

  19. Nice cup of tea*

    LW2

    Your coworker might be concerned you are going to burn out.

    You don’t have to kill yourself with over work to keep a job.

    It isn’t necessary or sustainable to “bust your butt” day in and day out. Your boss probably isn’t going to be pointing this out, but your coworker may well be right.

    Work hard, sure, but come up for breath occasionally. Take breaks and take time to get to know your team as well as the work.

  20. A Book about Metals*

    On #2, did you ask your coworker what he mean by “slow down”? You might want to start there

  21. Quick Carl*

    #2 I was told by a manager that I was answering emails too quickly, that I shoul wait at least an hour before I answered an email, because it was making the rest of the team look bad. So I would read an email, then put it aside no matter what it said (Help! the building is on fire! Oh well, I’ll address this in an hour). And then touch it for the second time. What a waste of my time!

    1. Not That Kind of Doctor*

      There is a method to this madness, in agency life anyway. If you train your clients to expect an instant response every time, you end up with days when Client A is melting down over nobody acknowledging their not-actually-an-emergency email within 5 minutes because everyone’s tied up with Client B’s latest fire drill.

      1. londonedit*

        Yeah, same here. A lot of the authors I work with are quite demanding, and can’t seem to get their heads around the fact that their book is not the only thing I’m working on. I absolutely employ delayed responses so as not to train them to think that I’ll snap into action whenever they email me. Most of the time I legitimately do have something more important to deal with, and I don’t do it with everyone, but there are definitely people whose emails I’ll wait a few hours to respond to.

    2. Magpie*

      Most email clients allow you to schedule emails to be sent in the future. Why not use that functionality for these emails so you only need to touch them once?

    3. Sneaky Squirrel*

      I too like to answer my emails quickly, and have a reputation for being responsive within my organization. It’s bitten back at me a little bit and I’ve had to dial back my email responses because it’s caused people to come to me first for questions, expecting that they’ll get a response quicker this way than going through any of my peers who should also be able to answer these questions and increasing my workload as a result.

      1. Tired at a nonprofit*

        Exactly this, at a nonprofit. Clients noticed that I tend to be responsive to email and have started emailing me directly with questions that should be going elsewhere. On more than one occasion, they have tried to email me to reschedule/cancel an appointment on a day when I was not in the office (and therefore not checking email) and were listed as no-shows because no one else was informed.

        I’ve taken measures to make it clear what is and is not appropriate to bring to me, but I’ve also started to schedule more emails instead of sending them out immediately. Resetting those expectations is much harder than it would have been to just not create them in the first place.

      2. Sylvia*

        Yes, this has bitten my department as well and we no longer answer emails quickly. People were emailing us about things they knew weren’t part of our jobs, instead of trying to look up the information themselves on the company website.

    4. FirstnamelastnameUK*

      I was caught out by this last week. I found out we had an urgent Llama issue which required direct intervention/decision from the V.V.I.P (whose time is obvs much more limited than mine).

      I quickly fired off an email and just 20 minutes later got a response. Great, how lucky, I thought, but actually the V.V.I.P was asking for clarification on a couple of issues, which if I had just let the Llama news sit with me for 20 mins and sent a more considered email, I would have anticipated.

  22. No logic*

    Aside from being cruel for the sake of being cruel, what is DOGE’s reason for sticking in the lie/line about being let go for performance reasons? Everyone knows they are firing people in their probationary period, so why add the jab?

    1. Harper*

      They probably hold an erroneous belief that they’re actually protecting themselves legally by “documenting” that these employees aren’t measuring up.

      1. fired federal worker*

        This is correct. Federal civil-service employees benefit from protections which, among other things, restrict how and why they can be fired; they are not “at-will employees” in the way that most employees are in the U.S.. DOGE is giving a pretextual reason for the firings which is superficially consistent with regulations. However, they haven’t followed the proper procedures for terminating for cause, and they certainly don’t have documented evidence that all of these people had performance issues, so there’s no way they’re actually following the rules here.
        Whether they will be held accountable for that remains to be seen. I certainly hope so.

    2. pally*

      Agree.
      My take: they feel this excuse will justify their actions. Because they know what they are doing is wrong and reprehensible. Maybe illegal too- I don’t know for sure. But if they can pile on enough bullsh!t, folks may well believe it and not take issue.

    3. bamcheeks*

      Looking at social media, there are clearly plenty of people who believe that it’s about getting rid of “waste”. So I guess it bolsters the narrative that this is a strategic identification and elimination of poor performance, and not just a bunch of guys waving chainsaws around and seeing what they hit.

    4. 3-Foot Tall Inflatable Rainbow Unicorn*

      Because the cruelty is the point. We’re talking about children in charge of chainsaws, high on their own (please God shortlived) power. The kind of people who openly talk about racist hatred and think replying with emojis is the height of wit and hilarity.

      If there is an actual strategy – and I seriously don’t think there is – then it is to demoralize the fired people so they don’t fight back and to fig leaf the firing as “cutting waste” on Fox News.

      1. Organmeister in New Hampshire*

        20-somethings (especially those who have founded multiple companies) are not “children.” And 20-somethings having an outsize role in DC is nothing new. You certainly don’t have to agree with what they’re doing, but stop infantilizing them.

        1. Infantilizing?*

          It’s obvious we’re not talking about literal children, just adults lacking in maturity despite their age. In any case, they aren’t 20-somethings but 50-80 year olds. The alleged “infantilizing” has nothing to do with their age! Personally, I would probably be more comfortable trusting actual children with power, they would likely make better decisions.

    5. Irish Teacher.*

      I’m looking from abroad so might well be missing something, but my impression is that it’s an optics thing combined with demonising the organisations they are firing people from. “Look at all the underperformers that were getting good reviews until we took over. This proves it’s a gravy train and we alone are fixing the corruption.”

      There have been numerous “why are you angry with Elon for catching those wasting your money instead of being angry with those wasting it?” or “if Elon caught the burglar that robbed your house, would you want Elon arrested instead of the burglar?” memes going around on facebook, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it was to play into that, this image of Elon Musk and his ilk as the heroes catching out the scammers who did no work and got away with it for years and would have continued to get away with it if it wasn’t for these meddling billionaires.

      1. FirstnamelastnameUK*

        I tend to assume the firings are to support the ‘lots of government waste’ narrative and when that is done, they’ll say we can reduce workload by cutting regulations which currently cost certain private companies a lot of money and in some cases outsource lucrative government contracts to certain private companies.

    6. doreen*

      Even though probationary employees can be terminated more easily than employees who are off probation, they still aren’t “at-will” in the way non-union employees in private companies – they still can only be terminated for limited reasons and claiming there are performance issues is one of them. Plus, of course they might lose support if they in any real way acknowledged this was not an individual decision. Whether they will get away with is an open question – but even if they don’t, it will take months

    7. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      Because that’s the only legal reason to fire people during their probationary period (the first year). A lot of people think that it can be for any arbitrary reason, but that’s actually not true.

  24. Harper*

    LW4: I just want to say I’m so sorry you’re in this position. Know that SO many of us are in your corner. What is happening in our government is atrocious and I hope for all the good for you and your colleagues, and all the misery for the people doing this to you.

  25. Irish Teacher.*

    LW2, I could be wrong but given the context here, my guess would be that that workmate was trying to reassure you. It is also possible they were afraid you’d show them up or something, but given how worried you seem about losing your job and the fact that you are “busting your butt,” I’d take the comment about you not needing to prove yourself to mean “relax a little. You don’t have to ‘bust your butt’. Everybody is happy with your work and isn’t going to judge you if you are less than perfect.”

  26. JP*

    We just had to tell a new employee to slow down in the sense that getting their workload completed as soon as humanly possible isn’t the goal. They need to take time to learn the system, to try to think through problems and troubleshoot, to understand this industry, etc. The employee is only a year or so out of college and is aggressively ambitious, which isn’t necessarily bad, but they’re plowing through their workload without understanding what exactly they’re doing and why.

    1. Lisa B*

      It’s soooo culture specific. We just turned down a candidate who boasted in their interview about working nights and weekends at their job whenever asked to learn something new, so they could master it as soon as possible. Well…. our workload (think consulting) means every project might entail you learning something new. I pride myself on managing work/life expectations for my team (have definitely threatened to turn off their systems access while on vacation, asked why I see them online every night, etc.) That mentality might be a boon at other employers but it’s a detriment here. I can’t in good faith bring someone in who admits they have a hard time picking up new concepts but will work 70 hour weeks until they figure it out. If I saw someone on the team who seemed like they were working themselves overtime to learn All The Things immediately, I would definitely tell them to take their foot off the gas.

      It’s hard to say whether it’s that type of situation or not without knowing more. Check in with your manager, for sure!

  27. A Book about Metals*

    #3 You should stay out of it. You said you would want to know if you were in your friend’s position. But if you were in the applicant’s position would you want your current boss to know you’re applying elsewhere? Of course not.

    1. about that*

      Yes, and maybe also rethink the whole “I’d want to know if I were her boss” thing.

      As a boss, I *would not* want to know. My team members’ job search is their business, same as mine is mine. They’ll tell me when they’re ready, and I’ll handle it professionally when they do. And I honestly couldn’t care less what they put on their resume. Their life choices are not my business. Obviously I’m going to give an honest reference, but that’s my business.

  28. Samwise*

    #1
    In higher ed there’s the problem of the trailing spouse/partner–two academics. If neither partner is a high-flyer or an “opportunity hire,” then they have to deal with that themselves. If at least one of them is, the institution will try to find a position for the other. Sometimes that means both partners are in the same department — which can be quite a mess for all the usual reasons. In some fields jobs are few and so a split-up couple may need to continue working together for years, as neither is able to move to an equivalent position somewhere else.

    1. allathian*

      This happened with my parents. They met in college and went in for the same niche STEM speciality. My mom has a Master’s degree and my dad has a Ph.D. and she worked as his lab assistant for much of my childhood.

      On top of that, my sister decided to follow in their footsteps, and when she got her Master’s degree, she did an internship at the environmental agency our parents worked at, and my mom had to take a sabbatical to avoid managing my sister! By that time our dad had retired on disability. When my sister did her Ph.D. she worked at that agency but her manager was unrelated to us, although our dad had supervised his Ph.D. research way back when. My sister’s doctoral research supervisor was another of my dad’s former supervisees. But there are only about a dozen people in the country in their speciality, so the options are few if you want to stay in the field.

      We lived in cramped conditions when my sister and I were kids, most of the time in a one-bedroom apartment, with all of us sleeping in the same bedroom until I was 12, and after that with my sister and I sharing the bedroom and our parents sleeping in the living-room, but that was another apartment, and my parents argued quite a bit, probably at least partly because they were together basically 24/7.

      I decided very early on that I didn’t want to follow in my parents’ footsteps.

      1. allathian*

        And the cherry on top is that my sister recently celebrated the dissertation of her first doctoral research supervisee, who’s the daughter of her former supervisor!

  29. TotesMaGoats*

    #1-Background for my perspective. My father was a minister for my entire life until I was mid-20’s. My mom never had a paid role at the church but lead children’s and youth choirs among other things. I was an interim worship leader for 5 years at the church that my dad has previously served (which was pretty cool to have his office and stuff, and he sang in my choir so full circle life thing). At my current church, there was a time when the wife was hired first as an admin asst and then the husband hired as worship leader. No issues there but then he was hired as senior pastor. We did put in boundaries where one of the other pastors supervised the admin asst/wife role but it was likely a paper only thing. (All of this in the context of Southern Baptist church/denom structure.) Note: I’m assuming the pastor role is going to a male and the worship leader role is to a female. That’s my experience talking and the norm in my part of the church world. Not the norm everywhere, I realize.

    So, what do I think? If the wife is going to get pressed into service as the worship leader anyway then pay her. Too many spouses get silently hired to do church work and it’s bullshit. That said, there is a long history of spouses being hired by churches with one as senior pastor and the other (typically the wife) for music or kids or something else. Can it work? Yes. Can it backfire spectacularly? Also yes. The pastor is going to hear enough complaints from church members, whether they should go to him or not, it’s going to get bad quick if the complaints are about his wife. If you decide to go down this road then you MUST have a frank conversation and clear management lines. And when a church member comes to complain about how loud the music is or they aren’t singing enough hymns he HAS to push back to the spouse FIRST then whoever is supervising the spouse. And no, it should not be by committee or an elder board.

  30. I'm just here for the cats!!*

    #1 I find interesting because almost every church I’ve been a part of the paster’s wife has had some role, like choir director. Maybe its because I grew up in small rural towns.

  31. ZSD*

    #2 Another interpretation of “slow down” is, “Ask questions before you act.” I’ve gotten the feedback before that while it was generally great that I responded to external emails promptly, I needed to learn to pause long enough to check with my bosses to see if we had a policy I didn’t know about, if they wanted me to word an email in a more nuanced way, etc. So it could mean, “Take the time to check with people with more experience at your current employer before you tell a client something that’s not quite right.”
    (It would have been helpful if your colleague had elaborated on the meaning of “Slow down!”)

  32. JonBob*

    I’m confused about the advice for #4: the OP was NOT a probationary employee, so why did the advice start with explaining that? (Unless it’s a “I got shafted, they got shafted, let’s stick together”?)

    1. doreen*

      As Alison said, it was” For people who don’t know what’s going on” . If someone didn’t know about the whole situation ( and many people outside the US won’t) , it wouldn’t make sense for the OP to say they were not a probationary employee.

  33. Person from the Resume*

    There may a special exemption for church and music ministry leader. That’s not a normal office situation already. And also not as much worry about favoritism among an office of equal coworkers and promotion opportunities.

    But this is an example that the most qualified candidate may not be the best candidate. And it’s not quite to the same level that he’s the most qualified but has zero people skills and a temper, but familial relationships are something you need to consider when hiring. It’s not that the applicant did anything wrong, but this is not the job for them because they’d be managed by their spouse.

  34. Box of Rain*

    After reading through the comments, I want to throw this out there RE #1–just because it’s a normal practice doesn’t mean it’s the best way to go. LOTS of things in hiring practices were normal that aren’t now, so that argument doesn’t necessarily land well.

    1. Dahlia*

      It is important to keep in mind that “the best way to go” and “actually realistic to this church” might not be the same thing. There might not actually be many more people who are willing to work a part-time, somewhat unpredictable job for not a whole lot of money, who are already part of their church and qualified to be a music director. That’s a very, very small field of candidates.

  35. another fired fed*

    I was a probationary federal employee fired late afternoon Friday. My supervisor fought to keep me, and I was paid by an external grant so I didn’t cost the taxpayer a cent. None of it mattered—they had a list of everyone newer than a year and I was on it. The memos we received at my agency were identical, with language about how our “skills and abilities weren’t adequate to the agency’s needs” or something (haven’t been able to bring myself to reread it). As others have said, you’re only supposed to be able to fire people for performance or misconduct. My supervisor told me that an adjacent team had to let someone go for actual performance problems recently and even for that, there was so much paperwork and documentation they had to do—clearly they tossed out all normal procedures here. Actual layoffs/restructurings are supposed to go through a formal Reduction in Force process, which still leaves newer people vulnerable, but at least you have notice it’s coming and there’s a specific procedure and, presumably, an effort to treat people with dignity and respect. This, on the other hand, is calculated to cause as much damage and pain as possible.

    It’s been absolutely horrible, capped by the fact that I’m due with my second baby in 3 weeks. I work in a niche field and it was already hard enough to get this job. It’s very hard to see a way forward right now. I’m so sorry to everyone else affected.

  36. Parenthesis Guy*

    “I don’t think I’ve been making any mistakes in my work, I’ve been asking good questions, and trying to take initiative on some projects.”

    LW#2: As you can see from the comments, this can mean nearly anything. Without more context, we’re all guessing. I’ve seen this happen with people when they try and do too much when they first start. They try and change established processes without understanding why they happen. The questions aren’t bad ones, but the new employees need to listen to the answers. If you’re taking too much initative, instead of trying to learn from your co-workers about each of the areas, then you may be going too far. Your boss may want you learning rather than trying to lead new efforts.

    But others have made good suggestions also about what it could be.

  37. Another Kristin*

    LW #2, please take your coworker’s advice. They are telling you to work at a sustainable pace – that means a sustainable pace for the organization, not just yourself.

    Yeah, it feels good to be the rockstar who does twice as much work as everyone else…for a little while. But in the long run, you are busting your butt for exactly as much pay is the guy sitting next to you who does the bare minimum, and you’re setting yourself up for burnout and resentment. I’m not saying you should ONLY do the bare minimum, but give yourself a bit of a break!

    Signed, your formerly hyper-productive coworker who also worked faster and harder than everyone else and had to take the 2nd half of 2020 off because she burned out

    1. Amari*

      This is basically what I was going to say. I used to be a very type A, straight A student, and was used to working really really hard to get a good grade, I didn’t know any other way to be. Then for my first “real” job out of school, I had a VERY kind coworker sit me down one day and say “Listen. You can only do so much in a day. And your reward for doing a ton of work is just going to be MORE WORK, it’s not like you get paid more for being a top tier employee. You need to do less, try less. You will be paid just the same and not burn out.” It’s 10+ years later and I still think that’s the best career advice anyone has ever given me. It’s not like I do a bad job, I still give… Maybe about 60% at my job most of the time. And I’m still a top tier performer, and I’m not at risk of burnout. This is the way.

      1. stratospherica*

        Yes! And doing 60% means that when something really is urgent, you have somewhere to go from your norm to get it done sooner, rather than tearing your hair out and being over capacity because your norm is 100% so you’re suddenly required to give 140%.

  38. HannahS*

    OP1, a cautionary tale:

    I used to be peripherally involved with a synagogue that hired a husband and wife as the rabbi and music director/cantorial soloist. It was SO GREAT (until it wasn’t.)

    They were generally unified on their vision of services and special events (except that the volunteer board lost all power,) it was financially efficient (until the board needed to let the music director go for cost-savings and couldn’t without losing the rabbi,) and just kind of cozy and nice (unless there was a problem with one of them but not the other…and there were.)

    That synagogue is dying for a number of reasons, and I can’t say that hiring a couple is the main reason. But the financial corner they backed themselves into was definitely a big part of it.

    1. HannahS*

      I’ll say, too, that there are a lot of settings–often more conservative ones–where the typical setup is that the male spiritual leader has the main role and his wife has an important but auxiliary role, usually with women, children, or music. If the husband leaves the congregation, the wife goes with him, and she is not held to the same standard that an independently-hired professional would be.

      Obviously I would prefer that the woman be paid in that situation rather than unpaid. But if your plan is to hire two professionals and manage them as such, then you need to be Very Careful about hiring a couple.

      1. Alan*

        Interesting perspective. I know nothing about Jewish spaces but I question whether “hire two professionals and manage them as such” even applies in small Christian spaces. There’s no way to “manage” church staff without causing drama and gossip and people leaving in a self-righteous huff. At least that’s been my experience, and I’ve been on a church board. Churches are just very different (questionably dysfunctional) employment spaces.

        1. HannahS*

          I mean, I think that’s true in many small non-profits! And is certainly also true in synagogues. I guess what I was getting at is that if you hire Pastor Joe Schmo and his wife Jane, it’s a lot harder to fire or performance manage one of them, compared to if you hire two unrelated professionals.

  39. Lark*

    Re “probationary” – in the federal government, someone who has moved jobs and is in their “probationary” period at the new job (like first six months or a year), even if they have thirty years of experience, is considered “probationary”. All those people were fired too. Not that it’s any better for an individual to be fired just because it’s your first government job, but I think there is a perception in the media that this is all early-career people in roles that may not require a lot of expertise, or at least people who don’t yet have a lot of expertise. Nope! People with lots of experience and expertise are also being fired!

    1. doreen*

      I think that at least part of the reason for that perception is because in state/local government ( and union jobs) it’s common for someone who doesn’t successfully complete their probation for performance reasons to return to their previous title if they had one. I wouldn’t have known that it doesn’t work that way with the Feds if I hadn’t read an article that specifically said the person who was had worked at the agency for years but had only been at the current job a few months ( I’m 90% sure I read it in the Washington Post while probably knows more about this than media in other places)

  40. Did the right thing (but it doesn't feel like it)*

    LW 4 — If you have the possibility of press in your future, PLEASE please please lock down your internet and social media presence. Start now while you still have the energy to do so. LinkedIn makes it very challenging to make your profile private, but it is possible. Google and Bing have a process to request to remove search results; it is also complicated, but not impossible. In addition, Consumer Reports has an article recommending paid services which request your data be removed from hundreds (literally hundreds) of those data-scrubbing sites that will post all your private information like home addresses, phone numbers, family members, etc. It is worth the price to sign up for that. I know because I’m in the midst of being doxxed right now. Please, proactively protect yourself.

    1. fired federal worker*

      *sigh*

      This is good advice, I won’t deny, but it makes me so sad.

      I’m not going to lock down my LinkedIn or social media profiles because I am using them to spread the word about what DOGE is doing. They’re an important tool in, and I am willing to accept the risk of continuing to use them in this way.

      But yet, I should probably pay for one of the commercial data-scrubbing services. I use several of the free ones, but I suspect the commercial ones are going to do a better job.

      Having said that, I’ve been online for nearly 40 years, nearly all of it under my own name, so honestly, I’m not sure any of them are going to be able to get everything.

      I will have to think on this.

  41. Pastor's spouse*

    The pastors spouse being very very involved in a church as an employee or volunteer is really really common. In some denominations it’s a package deal. In these cases the church doesn’t treat them as employed individuals but as a team. So if you have to fire one, they both go. When my spouse went to a new congregation, the whole family left.

    1. Alan*

      Very common and not that problematic from what I’ve seen, at least in small churches. I wouldn’t do it in a church of 5000 for all the obvious reasons. But when there’s only 3 staff for the entire church (some or all of whom are likely part-time), it’s really not an issue.

  42. Ex-Teacher*

    RE LW1: Alison’s comment on “there are more music directors” can actually be a bit of a challenge in a church context. If this is a more traditional church, a minimum requirement for this position is typically the ability to play the organ competently. There are not a lot of organists out there, and vanishingly few people studying the organ as a primary instrument.

    While I absolutely agree that the relationship issues would create substantial concerns and would require clear boundaries and oversight, this may be a situation where it’s worth the challenges. If organ skills are necessary, then it could be years before another candidate who meets the minimum quals even comes along, never mind applies.

    Last time I was involved in hiring a music director, we took around 8 months to get any qualified applicants (and as one of the larger churches in the area, we were a bit of a leader in salary offerings). We only got 2 qualified candidates, out of three applications. That was ballpark 15 years ago, and the candidate pool has continued to shrink (in many cases due to the ages of potential candidates) since then.

    1. PostalMixup*

      I agree with this. I was on a hiring committee for a music director within the last five years. It was a year-long search, we got fewer than 15 applicants, only half were a good enough fit for a first round interview (a third were disregarded immediately due to information found online – church newsletters are a wealth of useful information!), only three were worth bringing in, and only one turned out to be a good fit once we met them in person. Fortunately, he’s great, but sometimes there truly aren’t other options!

  43. Bertha*

    LW#2, I have been told to slow down at a couple of jobs, and both times (and with hindsight) it was because they couldn’t keep up with training me and needed a break, or didn’t want me to run out of things to do. Later, I was on the other side of that equation, where I was trying to train someone and worried they’d run out of things to do! As you can see from other comments, there are multiple ways to interpret this, so be sure to ask for clarification .. but they aren’t all negative.

  44. Librarian manager here*

    I would have agreed with Alison about the hiring the spouse but-
    Perhaps it being a religious institution changes things.
    I certainly see all the reasons why this wouldn’t work and all the “what ifs?” yet
    in my congregation the rabbi and the canter are spouses and have been in place for over 25 years (I am a recent member just over 2 years)
    The board of directors are their supervisors and I believe a sub group of “clergy committee members” does the actual “managing.”
    They are both essential to my religious experience.

    1. Triplestep*

      I don’t have t his situation at my own synagogue, but it’s fairly common for a rabbi’s spouse to be employed at the same shul in some capacity. Surprised by Alison’s answer to be honest. LW#1, I think you’re probably fine. But I’m Jewish, so maybe I’m off. I would ask people who are active in their churches, optimally in leadership roles, and optimally the same denomination as yours.

  45. Phony Genius*

    On letter#4, is their concern #3, about the company not being able to get government contracts if one of their employees is suing, a real thing? Is this an actual policy, or just an assumption about something that this administration might do?

    1. fired federal worker*

      I am 100% certain that before the end of the Trump administration companies will be frozen out of doing business with the federal government if they have any publicly, vocally “disloyal” people in their employ.

  46. NocoffeeNowork*

    For #3, also consider that if your industry is small, word might get around that you shared an employee was job hunting. People mught be hesitant to apply if they think you’ll report it to their boss.

  47. Alucius*

    For LW #1, my first thought was “well, at least they’re considering PAYING the minister’s spouse rather than just assuming that OF COURSE they’ll do it for free!” I’ve seen lots of smaller churches where the default assumption was that the pastor’s wife would just volunteer to lead the music, run the Ladies’ Bible Study, manage the nursery and children’s ministries, etc without remuneration.

    For this specific situation, a lot hinges on the size of the church. If it’s a large one and this is a full-time position, then yeah, hiring the spouse seems like a bad idea for any number of reasons mentioned above. If it’s a small church and a very part time role, there may well not be any other legitimately qualified candidates available.

    1. Iusemymiddlename*

      Following up on the “part time” portion of the comment, it is increasingly difficult to find qualified music directors for churches. I am currently playing for three different congregations each week because there are simply not church organists available. It sounds like this couple is well aware of the pros and cons. Also, supervision by a church board is very common.

  48. That Library Lady*

    Does anyone else find it mind-boggling that the new administration can just…fire people? For pretty much no reason other than they feel like it, or in the name of “government efficiency” or “they were all just DEI hires and we need the best”? I know absolutely nothing about employment law but it feels like this should be illegal. Like, make it make sense.

    1. North Bay Teky*

      I wouldn’t expect a felon to act in any way other than felonious. He has no constitutional authority to make changes to how the US spends money. But he’s doing it anyway. He doesn’t care that he doesn’t have authority to do many of the things he’s doing. The gop is fine with trashing our constitution.

    2. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      Many employees of private companies have been fired by the new boss or director or whatever under similar circumstances. It’s a shock because government is supposed to be insulated from and above that nonsense.

    3. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

      It’s basically at-will employment taken to an absurd extreme. But 49 of the 50 states (not Montana, as I recall? Or is it Wyoming?) do in fact allow anyone to be fired at any time for any reason that isn’t expressly protected by state or federal law.

    4. anonymous worker ant*

      When you put someone in charge who is known for violating the law, and who has been told by the court that he can break all the laws he want while he’s in charge, I don’t know why people are still being surprised that illegal things are happening.

      1. NotAnotherManger!*

        This is the answer. There have been no real consequence for behaving this way, and the systems that are supposed to check this behavior are either incredibly slow or deliberately refusing to do their duty. Laws and rules only work with the consent of the governed and the enforcement by appropriate authorities – that’s not happening here.

    5. Dek*

      The new administration is working by the clipboard rule: If you walk fast and hold a clipboard, you can go just about anywhere and people won’t stop you because they figure you’re doing something and it’s probably above their level to question.

      They’re just going fast and telling people to do things…and folks do them because they seemingly have authority.

      It’s horrible and I hate it.

  49. Qwerty*

    OP2 – Consider your demeanor at work. In addition to the reasons that JJ lists in a comment above, this is something we tell new coworkers who seem to be frantic, anxious, drowning, etc.

    Your boss has said they want to have you trained by April. It is normal for a boss to lay out a plan – is it possible you are reading that as “be fired in April if not perfectly trained” ? Do you know whether you are on track for the training schedule or are you trying to learn everything as fast as possible today rather than in a steady maintainable manner?

    You have stated that you are scared of losing your job – that is probably coming across in your conversations with coworkers. Anxiety can be an aura around someone, so when they say “Where do I find the TPS form?” what gets communicated is the underlying panic of “oh my gosh I don’t know where the TPS form is! I should know this by now! You must think I’m such an idiot and can’t want to get rid me”

    Finally – remember there is a decent chance your coworker was trying to reassure you. Odds are they have confidence in your ability to learn everything you need to with significantly less stress.

    1. Saturday*

      This is along the lines of what I was thinking. It seems like OP is really pushing themselves, and the coworker could have been trying to reassure them that they can move at a more comfortable pace and still get everything done.

  50. Jane Bingley*

    I know #1 is common, but that doesn’t make it smart. There’s a reason so many churches have unhealthy and toxic work cultures. Churches often act like the regular rules of employment don’t apply to them, and hiring spouses is a common and particularly bad example. Religious orgs really need to learn from the business world. (Source: decades of religious employment.)

  51. Don’t worry, they know*

    LW 3: odds are your friend already knows, there’s no need to tell her.

    I have a friend with a direct report who constantly tries to take over other duties, takes credit for work that isn’t hers (since the third week she was there, her socials imply that she runs the department when she’s in fact the most junior member with a primarily admin support role), neglects the tasks she was hired to do, all the stuff you’ve described. And just as you’ve described, it’s led to HR involvement.

    It wouldn’t surprise me or anyone who is aware of the situation if this person is actively looking for other roles with a resume that reflects all her misrepresentations, not her actual role. In fact my friend is quite sure that the resume that led her to hire this person was falsified, since she doesn’t have the knowledge base she claimed to have when she was hired!

    Shred the resume and rest assured, your friend is already 100% aware that this is how her employee operates.

  52. Ex-Prof*

    1. It’s also likely that if the spouse is fired or resigns unhappily, you’ll lose the minister.

    I worked in a school once where the best teacher was married to the worst teacher. A new principal came in, cleaned house, and went through the convoluted process required to fire the worst teacher. Of course the best teacher quit.

  53. Also Too Fast*

    Long, long, ago I had a tenuous connection and got a summer job while in college. I worked at Daley Plaza for the City of Chicago. My job was to pick up a list of files to retrieve, go down to the file room, pull them, and bring them up. All of my coworkers were older white males who smoked – inside, because you could do that then. On my first day, my coworkers told me not to work so fast. I didn’t think I was working that fast to begin with. I didn’t think I could manage if I worked as slowly as they did. I quit after the first day, explaining to my tenuous connection that my contact lenses couldn’t stand the smoke. I realized that these guys (and maybe me, too??) were part of the patronage system, enjoying their non-busy, smoky days. I was rocking their boat.

  54. Ex-Prof*

    #4. Honestly at this point the news cycle is so taken up with /waves hand vaguely/ that I can’t see a story about a class action suit getting much coverage.

  55. tuxedo cats are the best*

    LW4: Not to be rude but being probationary, being fired for performance and having good reviews has been mixed all together. Many in the media are getting this wrong. I am at a government agency and hired on in April 2024. Because of my hiring my annual review is not till May 2025. Many of the probationary employees have not had annual reviews so to it can’t be said they are being fired for performance.

    What is going on is an illegal RIF. There are legal ways to shrink the government, Clinton did it in the 1990s. What DOGE is doing is not legal and just trying to do an end run around the unions.

    This was what the Fork email was about, just another end run around the unions.

    How will this all turnout is anyone’s guess. It really is up the courts. I don’t know how this will turnout, but I have little to no hope.

  56. Recovering Librarian*

    #2 My first job in the library a co-worker told me to “slow down, you’re going to make the rest of us look bad.” Once I got to know this person, she was the type that ran around all day like a chicken with her head cut off, but not actually doing anything. I never once saw her sit down and check in a cart of books. So I say, take it with a grain of salt. If you have a manager that is actually supervising you, maybe bring it up. It is true that government pace is generally slower than corporate. But the manager’s expectation might not be the same as your co-worker’s.

  57. NotMyNormalName*

    #2 – another aspect is when you are trying to learn everything in a short amount of time, it can create a temporary burden on those who need to answer the questions, no matter how good the questions are. “Slow down” might be about your coworkers workload and how much time they can dedicate to training.

    1. Tired at a nonprofit*

      This is also a really good point. I’ve definitely been in situations where my regular work responsibilities made it hard for me to stay on top of trainees’ questions and overall workload. That would have been even harder if the trainees were trying their hardest to get everything finished as quickly as possible. I budget my time with the assumption that the trainee will be occupied and doing their own thing for a certain amount of the day. If it gets to be more than that, it very quickly starts to feel like babysitting.

      1. bamcheeks*

        Yeah, and sometimes part of being a “good” new employee is recognising that everyone around you is busy and you just have to sit tight without enough to do until you’re sufficiently up-to-speed to generate and manage your own workload! Some people reeeeeaally struggle with that.

  58. Alan*

    This. The size of the church is the determining factor. Some churches have literally 2-3 staff members, e.g., receptionist/secretary, the pastor, musician/choir director. I do not think it would be that off for the pastor and musician to be married to each other in such a church. Not odd at all. There is the implicit understanding that they are a team. You know up front that when you’re chewing out the choir director you’re also chewing out the pastor and vice versa. But in my experience, you don’t “fire” these people. They get “called to a different position” :-).

  59. The Hare*

    #2 I, too, have been told to slow down, my entire career! The thing is, I just…am fast. I sit through hour-long discussion meetings where I know what solution we’ll get to in the first 5 minutes. There’s no mucking around when I do my work, I just get to the solution right away, because my brain can rapid-cycle through all the options and find the right one without trying a bunch of dead ends first. It’s just my natural pace. “Slowing down” would mean just sitting there, which feels terrible to me at work.

    A lot of commenters are advising you to not be anxious, to think things through, but you say you’re not making mistakes, so you may be like me! If you’re fast, you’re fast, nothing you can do about that. Pay attention to the culture in your new workplace (in terms of responsiveness and urgency), and embrace the “schedule send” button on your email.

    1. NotAnotherManger!*

      I experience the same thing. Being told to slow down, especially if it was not because I needed to improve the quality of my work or get a more nuanced understanding of something before proceeding, would be frustrating for me. I like to be busy during my work day (and actually perform better when I am and have less idle time), and I’ve been lucky to have a boss that lets me work the way that produces best results for both of us and in an organization that rewards high-quality productivity with money, promotions, and opportunities to work on things I enjoy the most.

  60. Safely Retired*

    Regarding the “slow down” suggestion, I’m imagining the OP being kind of hyper, maybe getting over wrought, so that the advice was akin to “settle down”. Not the most likely, but possible.

    1. Lenora Rose*

      I can see 3 ways to read it:

      1: OP is anxious or overeager and trying to do too much while still learning, leading to doing a lot of things, not necessarily badly, but without enough information or attention to do them *really* well. This seems especially likely with OP characterizing themselves as busting their butt in February to learn things that need to be learned by April. If so, the advice would be to slow down and really look at doing every job right; proofread and double check your work, craft replies with thought rather than speed, set a task down when you think it’s done, work on something else, and come back to it with a fresh eye later, reread instructions and confirm all steps were done in full.

      2: OP is already obviously pushing work-life boundaries (doing overtime or not taking breaks) and while “fine” right now, look like they are setting themselves up for an unsustainable pace and burnout. This also might match the “Busting my butt” comment, and also the coworker’s “you’re already part of the team” comment, as that seems to be flagging that the OP is putting pressure on themselves that is not coming from the workplace. Here the advice would be — take the breaks. Stretch, eat lunch, stop at the end of the day with notes for where to resume rather than powering through for another hour.

      3: Coworker is lazy or inept and doesn’t like being shown up by a competent person. Here the advice would be to keep doing what you’re doing – but usually they don’t frame this in terms of the OP already belonging to the team. It’s hard to be sure in such a short letter but this feels like the least likely of the options — this time.

  61. Justice for All*

    Letter writer #4, I am cheering you and the other potential complainants on. Sue the pants off those turkeys!

  62. Panhandlerann*

    In some communities, it is exceedingly difficult to find someone to be music director, or youth director, or any number of other things in a church. A spouse of a minister who is qualified for such a position may literally be the only available person for it.

  63. Jules the 3rd*

    LW 2: You are doing nothing wrong, but make sure you are not working overtime as you ‘bust your butt’. Your co-worker may be trying to help you protect your free time.

    I just moved to local govt from industry six months ago. Very highly motivated / educated team (90% MPAs), but 20 years younger than I am, and they are *serious* about their work-life balance. It was *really* weird to have people stop by my office to say bye at 5:15, then I realized it was a subtle peer pressure. Our hours are 8:30 – 5:15, and everyone under 45 (and half the people over 45) stick to them. Our management has done work (hiring and load balancing) to make sure that everyone can get their work done in that time frame.

    There’s also no ‘work 12 hrs one day then 6 the next and call it even’. Coming from a culture where my ‘half days’ meant I worked 8 – 3, getting ‘just one more thing!’ done, this is a serious adjustment, and I feel sooooooo slack.

    But the hours are what they hired me for, and I am learning quickly, contributing, and my boss is delighted, so… roll with it. Maybe write out what learning areas you want to tackle in the next six weeks and when, and check with your boss that that she agrees with that schedule. My boss was delighted to get 3x/week task updates for the first two months, which we’ve moved to less detailed / 1x/week plans and updates now that I’ve got my feet under me.

    LW4: Good luck to you, and don’t mention it until it happens. The case could be next month, or it could be two years from now. Until you have a time frame, it’s not relevant.

  64. Fuzzy Dunlop*

    I’m interested in the advice for #4 as I am a lead plaintiff in a class-action suit against my employer, though the issue is different. I’ve thought about if/when I job search. I think I would need to be prepared to talk about it if asked, but would not proactively mention it. My case has received media attention, so it would be easy for the potential employer to find. Also, for what it’s worth, the case hasn’t (at least so far) required time away from work because what’s needed to be done so far can be done on breaks/weekends/evenings/via Zoom etc. That could change at some point of course though I expect it would be far off.

  65. Pastor's kid*

    #1: Don’t hire the pastor’s spouse, and try not to hire a congregational member if you can avoid it.
    My dad is a pastor and my mom used to be employed part time, then full time by the same church. They would unequivocally never do it again.
    My dad’s opinion is that for any position that is not theological leadership – music director, admin assistant, HR, etc – it is so much healthier for the church body to hire someone who is not worshipping at that church, period. He has led some very small, rural churches and churches in the suburbs of much larger cities, so he’s had some variety. My sibling also works full time as a church leader in a different state. She’s had some major issues with how the congregation’s bookkeeper handles her pay (every year!), and that bookkeeper is a worshipper at her church. It is so uncomfortable for her to have to keep confronting this person and roping in the elders.
    Even for music, you really need to establish a professional relationship between leadership and paid staff, especially if that staff member is stewarding a budget or submitting expenses of any kind. If you truly cannot hire outside of the family, then maybe it should be scaled back to a volunteer role.

  66. Not your typical admin*

    Wife of a Pastor here – and I agree it’s very common for staff spouses to be involved in either a paid or volunteer role. I’ve done both (much more volunteer than paid). Being clergy is the kind of role where you have to have a supportive spouse. In fact – I can’t remember any interview process where I wasn’t expected to be involved.

    1. allathian*

      Did they interview you as well, or did they expect your spouse to speak for you and you to be okay with that?

      1. Not your typical admin*

        Typically, he has done an initial phone screening and/or first interview. Depending on how that went, we were brought in as a couple to talk to the committee. Most of the questions directed to me were about what if any role I saw myself playing and if the church and community were somewhere I could see myself being happy. I agree with many of the commenters that clergy is a unique role for the spouse. In a lot of ways you become a hostess, admin, and so many other roles. In some cultures it’s also almost an esteemed role. Our church has allowed small congregations from other cultures who worship in languages other than English to hold their services in our facilities. Many times when my husband and I have joined them I’ve been referred to as “First Lady”. Even socially, people sometimes get a little weirded out when they find out my husband is a minister.

  68. ChiliDog*

    LW1, I disagree with Alison’s advice given the very specific setting. A very large portion of my family are members of clergy and serving in congregations. Fair or not, their spouses become de facto leaders/volunteers within the community as well and in a big way. This person is going to be tightly involved with the congregation whether they’re musical director or not. They may very well find themselves “assisting” and “filling in” with the music program by default because they have the skills to do so. They might as well get paid for it. It really varies by congregation size and type, but this level of involvement often means that the non-clergy spouse works no more than part-time.

  69. Kat Was Here*

    LW #2-We hired someone for a contract position last year and they were so desperate to prove they were a “good hire” that they burned through a whole lot of work and burned through a whole lot of goodwill by constantly nagging people for tasks to do and not reading the room in regards to the pace of work. They tried to take on tasks that were above their paygrade to show their worth, but really their worth was in doing the set tasks we had given them properly and on time. It was exhausting working with them because they were always wanting more work to do instead of learning how to pace themselves. They’d complain about “how bored” they were, and inadvertently offended those who trained them by insinuating they weren’t given enough to do. There were a lot of oversteps because they’d take on something not assigned to them and expect a lot of praise for taking initiative but they weren’t authorized to take that on, and that work was unusable. It was addressed with them and their supervisor and there was a meeting about workplace norms and what is and is not part of their job. The biggest comment I heard about this person was that they were “too eager”. This person was hoping to be hired after their contract was done, but their failure to listen when given the feedback to slow down, follow our workplace norms and listen instead of talk wasn’t heeded.

    I think it’s imperative to take your first few weeks at a new position learning the pace and culture, while learning what’s expected of your exact job. You need to find the specific balance of learning, contributing, listening and adding value that job requires.

  70. Nancy*

    LW1: it is very common for family members to have positions in a church, especially a small church. Those positions are often part-time and pay very little, if anything, so yes, a music director can be difficult to find.

  71. Bookworm*

    I’m Eastern Orthodox. It is VERY common for the priest’s wife to do a lot within the congregation. The priest and his wife are really considered to be a package deal and the wife is considered to be a partner in his ministry. This will be nothing secret for the wife. If she has the skills, she will often be the choir director in smaller congregations. Otherwise, she might head the women’s group or else do a lot of organizing things within the parish. It would be very unusual for her to be paid.

  72. NameChangeRequired*

    #5 – No one has answered five, so incase they’re reading, I will as long as it registers my different username.

    1. NameChangeRequired*

      a few years ago the large organisation I worked for was subject to an inspection by the regulator that ended v.badly. Consultants were hired and the whole management team went. Even as a mid level office manager not part of the ‘professional service’ I got caught up in it.

      I managed to move within the organisation, I think someone vouched for me (ie HR said she did not deserve this) but it was horrific. I did not want to speak to or see anyone from my old team, it affected me for years.

      The woman will feel wretched, judged and incompetent. she’ll have worries about keeping her job, money, home and everything else that goes with it. She’ll also have a pretty good idea that you know she was moved out.
      And to top it all, she still has to come into the same building everyday and pretend everything is OK.

      So do not ignore her, don’t congratulate her on the new job. Don’t go too far in being friendly. Just be pleasant when you see her, if she mentions the last job being difficult be sympathetic and above all, just be kind.

  73. Calamity Janine*

    for LW3, i think if you feel a moral duty here, you can put that aggravation to rest – one of the reasons Alison is likely telling you to not step in here is… well, if you asked about this employee and her role specifically within this project? the director is very likely to have already read between the lines. you asked about an employee in roles she didn’t do and probably, unless you have a truly impeccable poker face, looked shocked or surprised by the news that her role was instead something else than your first line of inquiry. (and if you DO have that level of poker face? time to pack up your desk and hie thee to vegas, because you have a truly remarkable skill!)

    in short, odds are extremely, extremely good – within a rounding error of certainty – the morally important cat is already out of the bag. they have been politely given reasons to suggest that she’s misrepresenting herself about the work done for this outfit. that’s something the director with relevant connections now knows, or at least knows as a thing that has come up to you. they may choose to follow up with her about that… or they may not! if the field is as small and connected as you’ve said, this sort of bad move already running around the whisper network is her engineering her own comeuppance here. to paraphrase apparently Napoleon though you’ll find this credited to all sorts including Sun Tzu… never interrupt your enemy when they’re busy making a mistake.

    so that’s why doing something more direct is a bit too much. you’ve already communicated the ethics problem, which is taking credit for work that was not done. all you’d be doing is complaining about the part that isn’t a problem at all – finding a new job.

    ironically, if you lump the two things together, you get the morally neutral thing (finding a new job) mixed in with the morally bad thing (stealing credit for the work of others, general dishonesty)… and you actually make it easier to ignore, because you have a half-morally-bad thing to present to people. either they’ll have to spend time excavating the bad bits, or they’ll go “too much work. this person telling me this has a problem with the thing that that’s also not a problem whatsoever, so that makes me think the whole thing isn’t to be trusted”. in short, it gives her more cover to do dubious things, not less.

    i see how you want to say something – i’m the same way at times. if someone does a bad thing that hurts others, we want justice to be done! that’s not a bad impulse that i will admonish you for. but there’s a point at which it stops being justice… and there’s a point where you will fall into patterns that the ne’er-do-wells and general rapscallions are primed to exploit as cover. annoyingly that means you end up in a lot of situations where you feel like you have to let someone get away with it. that’s where i think it’s a good reminder to figure out what they’re really “getting away with”.

    what she’s “getting away with”… is her job search. which she doesn’t really need to get away with to begin with because it’s a perfectly normal ordinary thing, like eating a sandwich for lunch. it’s not nefarious to eat a sandwich, so you don’t require pardon for it, nor can that pardon be unfairly given. quite frankly, it sounds like she is a very bad fit at her current job, so we could even classify her not being in that job anymore as a moral good instead of a moral neutral – that sandwich she’s eating is necessary fuel for her human body to do stuff she needs to do for the sake of others around her.

    what she’s not getting away with, thanks to your check of references and speaking with the director? having a shiny new job at your workplace where she rode in on effort that other people did and she lied about doing it instead. and now, honestly, if people ask you about her in future, you can relay the same to the whisper network.

    in short, she’s already engineered her own comeuppance. (which makes a great aesop about Why You Shouldn’t Lie On Your Resume, Kids.)

    to gild the lily here would be to take issue with the stuff that isn’t an issue. you’ve already done your part. you don’t have to worry about this person’s career more than she does, because it seems she doesn’t actually care about it enough to come up with plausible lies (like ones that aren’t immediately shot down by asking around in an industry that’s small and full of connections and where asking around is extremely common).

    you can safely and freely give yourself the gift of knowing you did your bit and now it’s not something you need to worry about.

  74. George*

    For federal workers fired. This just came across my transom from AFGE on what looks to be the Michigan AG coordinating a class action on how firings are affecting certain states (listed in text). I also sent to to Allison, hoping she follows up to find out how best to format replies.

    Here’s what I got:
    “In case you know affected people in these states. Sharing from a federal employee friend in Michigan. Federal friends, please reach out to this person or the Attorney General’s offices in participating states to share RIF/firing experiences for the lawsuit.

    “Sharing the info for anyone that has been impacted by the layoffs. I read this to include anyone that was supposed to start at a federal agency, and had their position rescinded from the initial hiring freeze.

    “Data request from Jason Anderson of AFGE. Please email him directly if you have info Jason.Anderson@AFGE.org

    Good evening,
    Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel reached out to me this evening to ask if we could provide any information that would show harm to the American people in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, Connecticut, Rhodes Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Michigan, as a result of actions taken by DOGE, Musk, or President Trump against federal workers. She is looking for individuals who have been laid off or fired. She is looking for information about cancelled contracts and the harm those cancellations caused to Americans. She is looking for examples of any information that will serve as evidence in the lawsuit filed by the state’s listed above against DOGE, Musk, and President Trump. She asked if there was any way possible of getting her at least some examples by Monday, as the Judge has asked her for this information asap.

    If you have any information that the attorney general is seeking in support of the lawsuit, it would be extremely helpful if you would be willing to send me an email with the information asap.

    Thank you all for your leadership and the unwavering support of the bargaining unit employees you represent.

    Respectfully,
    Jason Anderson
    National Vice President
    AFGE District 7
    202-826-6753″

  75. Jack McCullough*

    One thing that is worth pointing out is that apparently, in the federal government “probationary” does not necessarily mean what you think it means.

    Most people see “probationary” and figure that’s someone who was hired within the last six months and is in an evaluation phase of employment.

    In fact, I’m seeing posts from people who have been in their probationary jobs for sixteen years! In no way would I consider such a job assignment probationary, but apparently that’s how they’re classified by the feds.

    So, yes, aside from the illegality, just another way that this onslaught is “profoundly shitty”,

    1. fired federal worker*

      Different agencies have different policies about whether previous federal government employment offsets probationary status.

      I.e., in some agencies, if you’ve been in government for a long time and you move into their agency for a job, they will count your previous service against you and not consider you probationary.

      In other agencies, you’re always probationary when you start at that agency regardless of how many years of service you have in other agencies.

      Agencies of the federal government are fiefdoms; while there are certainly some rules that they all need to follow, a lot of stuff varies from agency to agency.

  76. Seriously?*

    The whole church as a family business thing is pervasive. But I would never go to one where all the top people were related. At a church I attended years ago, the music director was forced out, and lo and behold, the pastor’s son is now in the position. Shocking.

  77. Jennifer Juniper*

    LW2, is the coworker telling you to slow down a top performer? Or are they the team slacker? If it’s the latter, I’d guess they see you as a tryhard.

  78. Good Wolf*

    I just came here to thank the person potentially suing DOGE. We need more people to take action and stop them. I’m so sorry for your situation and the loss of your job, and I’m so grateful to you for being brave and standing up for all of us.

  79. Coin_Operated*

    LW 1. Church supervisory roles can be very different from business, and often accommodate this very situation, as partner’s of ministers are commonly hired as staff. Usually when this happens, yes on paper the “minister” is supervising their partner, but in practice, it ends up more like they are equal directors of their own departments, with a church board acting as their actual supervisors. I think it would depend on how well you think this minister would do in this situation, how more qualified their partner is with available candidates, and how your church’s board could actually supervise them. This is generally done also with the understanding that if a situation comes up with one of them that requires firing, you will lose both of them. Again, that is very normal in most churches.

    1. Coin_Operated*

      To add, I’ve worked in denominations where the entire Church staff is expected to step down soo a new minister can hand-pick all of their staff.

Comments are closed.